Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 274.
Instituted on : 13.06.2018.
Decided on : 05.01.2021.
Geeta wd/o Late Sh. Devender Singh R/o V.P.O.Kiloi Khas, Pana Maidan, Tehsil & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, Haryana.
- Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, C-6, Sector-6, Panchkula. Haryana through its Secretary, office at Panchkula.
- Marketing Board, Rohtak through its Secretary, Marketing Committee, New Grain Market, Rohtak-124001, Haryana.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER
Present: Sh.J.K.Hooda Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sudhir Jakhar, ADA for the OP No.1..
Ms. Lovina Singla, Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is wife of deceased Devender, who had expired on 06.10.2014 while digging the irrigation minor in the fields of his village Kiloi. After the death of deceased Devender, the complainant duly informed the police and postmortem of Devender was conducted at PGIMS, Rohtak and it was found that the deceased was expired while digging the irrigation minor in the fields at village Kiloi. After that complainant came to know about the scheme of Chief Minister Agriculturist and labour life safety scheme 2013, which was commenced on 1st January 2014 and the complainant duly applied for the same and submitted all the documents to the opposite party no.3 as per rules and regulations. Complainant also submitted the FSL report with the opposite party but despite her repeated requests, claim has not been disbursed to the complainant. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim of Rs.500000/- alongiwth interest and other benefits under the scheme and Rs.50000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and Rs.55000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that it is denied that Devender s/o Sultan expired on 06.10.2014 while digging the irrigation minor in the fields of village Kiloi. The complainant has got no right to file the present complaint as the case of the victim does not fall under the category as covered in the policy. As per DD report, dated 06.10.2014, the police came to a conclusion that the death of Devender has happened either due to heart attack or smell of poisonous pesticides while spraying in the field. As per FSL report, no common poison could be detected in Ex.1A, 1B and 1C. The cause of death is still undecided as HPE report has not been supplied to the department by the complainant. In the light of above mentioned circumstances, the scheme of Chief Minister Agriculturist and Labour Life Safety Scheme 2013 is not applicable and the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. This scheme is applicable only when the cause of death is ascertained. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be matter of record and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence on dated 09.07.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed their evidence on 14.10.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that in the present case, as per the complainant the deceased was died during the process when he was digging the irrigation minor in his field at village Kiloi. This fact has not been denied anywhere by the respondents. Meaning thereby the deceased died during agricultural operations in the fields. Regarding the death, an intimation has been sent to the concerned police station and post mortem of the deceased was conducted vide PMR No.731/JN/2014 dated 06.10.2014. The complainant as well as the respondents have placed on record a copy of PMR, application moved by the police official to CMO, PGIMS, Rohtak, death report-Sudden death from natural causes and FSL report etc. From the perusal of PMR report, the cause of death furnished by the police was due to heart attack or smell of spray. In this report, as per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was mentioned as under : “ In my opinion, the cause of death in this case will be given after receiving reports from chemical examiner and radiologist”. These parcels were submitted by the police officials to the concerned examination authority i.e. Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal and the alleged laboratory issued the report dated 28.08.2015 which is placed on record as Ex.R5. As per this report, Laboratory Examination: “Chemical test and techniques were employed to detect common gaseous and volatile poisons, metallic poisons, inorganic poisons, plant poison, pesticides and drugs in exhibits-1a to 1c. Bases upon the examination carried out in the laboratory, the results are given as under:-
RESULT OF EXAMINATION:
1. No common poison could be detected in exhibit-1a, 1b and 1c.
Note:-(1) After examinations, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of SS/SSO CHEM FLS”.
The FSL report clearly states that no common poison detected in 1a, 1b and 1c. On the other hand, the reply was filed by the opposite parties and as per their objections, the FSL report was obtained from Madhuban, Karnal and the cause of death is still undecided as HPE report has not been supplied to the department by the complainant. It is further submitted that on the receipt of HPE report, the official letter will be sent to the concerned doctor by the department for his opinion regarding cause of death. We have also gone through the definition of HPE through web, which is as under:
What is the HPE report in medical term?: HPE is histopathological examination of surgical specimen ranging from tiny trucut biopsy to large specimen removed during major surgery. The full report includes macroscopic description, microscopic morphology, histochemical stain features and immunohistochemical stains findings”.
What is HPE report? : A histopathology report describes the tissue that has been sent for examination and the features of what the cancer looks like under the microscope. A histopathology report is sometimes called a biopsy report or a pathology report.
6. In this present complaint, the deceased was died on dated 06.10.2014, post mortem report was conducted on the same day and report u/ 174 Cr.P.C. was also prepared by the police authorities. The FSL report prepared on dated 28.08.2015 was sent to SHO P.S. Sadar for necessary action by the Deputy Superintendent of police Rohtak-III. This report was endorsed in market committee office on dated 14.09.2017 vide Sr. No.1191.
7. We have perused all the required and relevant documents placed on record by both the parties and came to the conclusion that the deceased was died on dated 06.10.2014 and FSL report was prepared on dated 28.08.2015 and this report was endorsed in the office of respondent no.3 on dated 14.09.2017. The respondent no.3 has not placed on record any document that they have written any letter to the police authorities or concerned laboratory for obtaining HPE report for fair disposal of the case. The objection of the respondent that the report of HPE has not been supplied by the complainant to the department/respondent no.3 seems to be false because the report of FSL has been supplied by the concerned laboratory to the SHO P.S.Sadar Rohtak for necessary action. Meaning thereby, if any HPE report was awaited by the investigation agency or by the opposite parties, it was to be supplied by the concerned authority to the concerned police authorities/investigating authorities and not to the complainant.
8. In this case if the deceased was died due to heart attack, in that situation this fact has been mentioned in P.M.R by the expert doctor who conducted PMR of the deceased. The same can be detected from the PMR but the concerned doctor sent visra for chemical and radiologistic examination to FSL, Madhuban, Karnal and as per FSL report of Forensic Science Laboratory Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal, no common poison could be detected in 1a to 1c, which shows that the deceased has not consumed any poisonous substance. If the same was consumed by the deceased in that situation the same poison should be found in 1a, 1b and 1c i.e. in stomach or part of small and large intestines, part of liver, spleen and kidneys or saline. Meaning thereby the poisonous substances was not consumed by the deceased. The second option advanced by the police was that deceased can be died due to smelling of poisonous pesticide and the same is found to be genuine as the deceased was doing agricultural work in the fields and as such the death of deceased is covered under the scheme of chief Minister Agriculturist and Labour Life Safety Scheme 2013, which is placed on record as Annexure-3 and as per section 3(g) of the scheme, this scheme covers the “Death or disablement of any farmer or labourer while applying any insecticides pesticides, weedicides, electric shock, fire hazards during the agricultural operations/pursuits within the State of Haryana”. Hence the complainant is entitled for the claim under the alleged scheme.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.500000/-(Rupees five lac only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.06.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the L.Rs of deceased Devender. Present complaint has been filed by Smt. Geeta wd/o Sh. Devender but other L.Rs of Devender have not been disclosed by the complainant. As such complainant is directed to submit the list of L.Rs before the opposite parties within 15 days from the date of order and thereafter opposite parties are directed to pay the claim amount in favour of LRs of complainant in equal share within 15 days from the date of submission of list of L.Rs. It is made clear that if any L.R of deceased Devender is minor, then his/her share will be deposited in any nationalised bank in the shape of F.D.R. till attaining the age of majority.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.01.2021
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
