Oral
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No.2664 of 2015
Executive Engineer, DVVNL, EDD-II,
Etawa. …Appellant.
Versus
1- Smt. Ram Murti w/o late Abhay Ram
2- Pawan Kumar s/o Late Abhay Ram,
R/o Village, Sarai Bhupat, Katey Khera,
Nagla Baba, Post, Raja Ka Bagh, PS,
Civil Lines, District, Etawa.
3- State of Uttar Pradesh through
District Magistrate. …Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Smt. Sudhay Upadhyay, Member.
Sri Isar Husain, Advocate for the appellant.
Sri Akhilesh Trivedi, Advocate for the respondents.
Date 6.11.2024
JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Vikas Saxena, Member: This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum, Etawa in complaint case no.02 of 2014, Smt. Ram Murti & anr. vs. Executive EDD-II, Etawa.
Heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order.
The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the respondent no.1 has taken fields of neighbouring villagers on Batai. On 25.03.2012 at about 12 noon he went to rented fields for irrigating fields, suddenly at 15:30 hours 11 KV lines conductor fell on the ground, but the supply was not disconnected, the late husband of the respondent was going to
purchase some biscuits, came into contact of live conductor and was electrocuted at the spot. The respondent lodged an FIR on the same day. The Asst. Director Electrical Safety recommended for compensation after conducting the investigation but the appellant denied compensation on the ground that the respondent was committing theft of electricity. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint before the ld. District Consumer Forum for compensation of Rs.5,00,000.00 lacks and Rs. 5,000.00 towards cost alongwith other reliefs.
The appellant filed detailed written statement denying allegations contained in the complaint. The first ground taken by the appellant that the respondent does not come within the definition of consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant further submitted that the respondents have filed the complaint case with suppression of material facts.
After hearing the both the parties the ld. District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/opposite party to pay Rs.4,21,100.00 with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment to the complainant no.1 within one month.
Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order the opposite party/appellant filed the instant appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is absolutely illegal, unjust, arbitrary besides being unreasonable and also lacks application of mind. The impugned judgment and order is a non-speaking order and against the provisions the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the correct facts of the case, the
deceased came in to contact of a live wire while repairing internal wiring of the tube well, the story made by the respondent about coming in to contact of the live fallen 11 KV line conductor is wrong and not sustainable in any manner, the appellant denied any accident with the 11 KV line and as per records no such breaking of conductor as alleged reported in the concerned Station. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the impugned judgment and order be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
The appellant has raised main objection in the appeal that the complainant cannot be considered a “consumer” of the appellant in this particular case as per the complaint, the death of her husband is said to be caused when he was going to purchase some biscuits from the agricultural field which indicates that the husband of the complainant died at a public place and electrocuted from the connection of which he was not a consumer.
Regarding this argument, various judgments passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC are relevant. In C.V. Vijaya Kumari & ors. vs. Assistant Engineer, (Operations) APSPDCI & ors., II(2020) CPJ 187 (NC), the matter before the Hon’ble NCDRC was that the deceased died of electrocution from an electric wire through public pole. The Hon’ble NCDRC held that the corporation maintaining the electric line would be a service provider for consideration through Municipality of the area. As per Hon’ble NCDRC the consideration may have been received either from the concerned Municipality or from the consumer to whom electricity was being supplied by it for domestic, commercial and industrial purposes. The complainant was considered to be a Consumer.
In another case, Chairman- cum-MD, Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. & ors. vs. T. Rajeshwari & ors., I(2021) CPJ 142 (NC), the death of the agriculturist occurred when he was operative the bore well. The Hon’ble NCDRC held that it was failure of duty of the corporation to properly maintaining the electric poles regularly and allowed the complaint and awarded compensation to heirs of the deceased.
In case, Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & ors. vs. Kimudu MOnu & ors., III(2020) CPJ 21 (NC), the deceased died on account of electrocution as he had touched live conductor while going on agricultural fields. The Hon’ble NCDRC held that it was the duty of the power company to ensure that no unauthorized extension should have taken by anybody from its regular power supply. Had the power company being vigilant, the alleged unauthorized extension would have been removed from the regular power line. The heirs of the deceased were awarded compensation for the death of the deceased under the Consumer Protection Act.
In case, CGM, P&O, NPDCL & ors. vs. Koppu Duddarajam & anr., IV(2008) CPJ 139 (NC), a live high tension wire fell on the farmer when he was sitting in front of veranda of Gram Panchayat office. The Hon’ble NCDRC, granted compensation in the Consumer Protection Act and held that every villager has right to access the Gram Panchayat office as the villager pay taxes to the Gram Panchayat and pay consumer charges to the electric company. The complainants were beneficiaries to the service provided by the electric company.
Considering the above mentioned judgments of the Hon’ble NCDRC, this bench is of the opinion that in this case also, the deceased being resident of the village where power consumption charges are being paid by the concerned Municipality, the deceased can also be considered as beneficiary of the service provider by the electricity corporation and therefore, this complaint is maintainable for the damages on account of death of the deceased.
Having heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned judgment and order we are of the opinion that the ld. District Consumer Forum after considering all the aspects of the complaint and evidence has allowed the complaint, which needs no interference. However, in our view the amount awarded by the ld. District Forum should be Rs.4,00,000.00 in place of Rs.4,21,100.00 and the rate of interest which is on higher side which should be 3% p.a. in place of 7%.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed partially. The judgment and order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum, Etawa in complaint case no.02 of 2014 is modified to the extent that the Rs.4,00,000.00 in place of Rs.4,21,100.00 and the rate of interest @ 3% p.a. in place of 7% shall be paid by the appellant/opposite party. Rest part of the judgment is confirmed.
If any amount is deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the ld. District Forum concerned for satisfaction of the decree as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sudha Upadhyay)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri, PA I
C-3
