Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This is an Appeal filed by the Station Manager, Chandrakona Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL and Anr. against the Order dated 26-03-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur in C. C. No. 200/2012.

In a short compass, case of the Complainants, is that husband of the Complainant No. 1, Shiba Prasad Ghosh died of electrocution on 18-06-2011 when the electric wire, through which temporary service connection was provided to the mini deep tube well of Sankar Prasad Ghosh, brother of deceased Shiba Prasad Ghosh, got snapped and fell down on the earth resulting which the entire area got electrocuted.  The matter was immediately brought to the notice of the OPs and accordingly, due enquiry was made by the Enquiry Committee formed by the OP No. 1, who made local enquiry.  However, despite repeated follow up, the OPs refused to pay any compensation to the legal heirs of Shiba Prasad Ghosh, since deceased.  Hence, the case.

Case of the OPs, in a nutshell, is that intimation about such peril was received after long 11 days from the date of accident, i.e., on 29-06-2011.  Yet due enquiry was made in this regard on 30-06-2011.  During such enquiry, no evidence of snapping of conductor/defect in the system of the company was  found in the area and therefore, it could not be ascertained with certainty that Shiba Prasad Ghosh died of electrocution.  As per Sec. 161 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, any type of electrical accident is required to be intimated to the Chief Electrical Inspector within 48 hours from the date of such incident, but due compliance of this statutory provision was not made by the Complainants.  Further, during spot inspection it was gathered from local witnesses that they replaced the cable for cultivation purpose, but could not state the name of person, who repaired the snapped conductor.  In view of all these, no claim case lie in the eye of law. 

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the material on record carefully, including the citations referred to.

Undisputedly, husband of the Respondent No. 1, Shiba Prasad Ghosh died on 18-06-2011.  According to the PM Report, Shiba Prasad Ghosh due to the effects of electrical injury which was ante mortem and accidental in nature.  According to the report submitted by Officer-in-Charge, Chandrakona P.S. dated 13-01-2012, during investigation, it was ascertained that on 18-06-2011, Shiba Prasad Ghosh got electrocuted when he went to the paddy field to look after the mini pump.  It further transpires from the letter dated 25-07-2012 of the Manager (HR&A), Paschim Medinipur Region, WBSEDCL that at the time of enquiry, it was learnt that the snapped conductor was repaired by one local people. Also, evident is the fact from the copy of letter dated 29-06-2011 that due intimation about the peril was communicated to the A.E., Chandrakona C.C.C.

In the light of above emerging facts from the material on record, we have no qualms holding that the incident of occurrence of death due to electrocution out of a snapped conductor that fell down on the earth is genuine. 

In the present case, it is alleged by the Respondents  that despite receiving requisite money from Sankar Prasad Ghosh, brother of deceased Shiba Prasad Ghosh, the Appellants did not arrange for drawing separate line and/or installation of separate transformer; instead arranged for supply of electricity from the rural electric line and provided necessary connection.  Time and again said consumer, stated to have urged the Appellants to provide permanent electric supply line by fixing pole etc and to remove the temporary electric line which was almost in hanging condition, but to no avail.  In this regard, the Appellants have not given any satisfactory reply to counter the allegation of the Respondents.  In our considered opinion, therefore, the Appellants cannot get away simply by attributing the cause of accident to natural calamity.  If the intensity of storm/rainfall was so severe/devastating, it would definitely cause catastrophe in the locality.  However, no such averment is made anywhere in the WV.  The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants though left no stone unturned to project it as a natural calamity, such averment does not seem quite convincing in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. Advocate of the Appellant could not give any satisfactory explanation for not adhering to the safety norms that they were obliged to follow scrupulously.  Surely, the Appellants cannot evade their responsibility for being too casual in their approach.

As regards allegation of belated intimation about the peril to the Appellants, admittedly, the Respondents submitted a letter to this effect to the Appellant No. 1 on 29-06-2011, i.e., 11 days from the date of occurrence of peril.  Although the Appellants disputed the claim of the Respondents for not giving due intimation within the schedule time frame as contained in the Electricity Act, as also the Rules framed thereunder, on a reference to the concerned provision, we do not come across any no such stipulation to the effect that failure to adhere to the time schedule, as contended by the Appellants, would turn a claim otherwise eligible into nullity.  In our considered opinion, therefore, whereas bona fide of Respondents to give due intimation to the WBSEDCL authority at the earliest is not in dispute, the objection raised from the side of the Appellants in this regard is not tenable. 

It is also argued by the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants that due notice was sent to the Respondents to attend hearing to justify the cause of death of Shiba Prasad Ghosh, but no one turned up at the time of hearing.  Apparently, the snapped conductor was repaired by a local person and as he did not come forward to face the Enquiry Committee, the Respondents did not attend the said hearing.  However, while available documents on record sufficiently proves gross negligence/ carelessness on the part of the Appellants resulting in the tragic death of a person causing great distress to the immediate family members of the deceased person, we believe, merely because the Respondents did not attend the hearing, that cannot be a justified ground to turn down their plea for compensation.

In this case, a precious human life was lost only because of the casual approach of concerned officials of the Appellants.  Still the Ld. District Forum at its wisdom awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. No doubt, against the backdrop of gravity of the situation, the amount awarded was a pittance and therefore, we see no reason whatsoever to reduce the compensation amount by even a single paise.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That FA/707/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, payable to the Respondents.