IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/163/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
18.09.17 10.10.17 27.08.19
Complainant: 1.Minor Rimika Ghosh, D/o Goutam Ghosh
2. Minor Lipika Ghosh, D/o Goutam Ghosh
3. Sharmila Ghosh, W/o Goutam Ghosh
4. Radha Rani Ghosh, W/o Jangal Ghosh
Vill-Benekhuri, PO-Berhampore under Haridasmati Gram Panchayet
P.S.-Berhampore, Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742101.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager
West Bengal State Electricity Distrubution Company Limited,
Chuapur,
Vill-Chuapur, PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742101.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Subhash Saha.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
One Rimika Ghosh (Minor) and Another (here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Chuanpur CCC (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The four Complainants filed the instant case stating that one Goutam Ghosh since deceased who was the son of Complainant No.4, Husband of Complainant No.3 and father of the Complainant Nos. 1 and 2, while working at the field, accidentally came into contact with electric wire which was lying in the field. The electricity was passing through the wire as it was connected with electric pole on the other ends and unfortunately, coming into the contact with the electric wire, he was died. The Complainants made several requests to the OP to compensate them as the deceased was the only earning member of the family and his annual income was Rs.72,000/-. But the OP denied to compensate. So, the Complainants filed the complaint before this Forum claiming compensation alleging that the death was caused due to negligence of the OP in maintaining the power lines.
The OP after service of the notice appeared before this Forum by filing W/V stated that the petitioner or their predecessors are not the consumer under this OP as per the definition of the C.P. Act and there was no negligence on the part of the OP, so the case is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for consideration
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reason
All the points are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity.
It is a fact that Goutam Ghosh died by electrocution (vide post mortem report).
Undoubtedly, the deceased was the consumer as he paid the power consumption charges to the electricity company (OP) and the Complainants are beneficiaries to the service provided by the company. By this way, the Complainants are entitled to file this case.
Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. We have heard the Ld. Counsels of both parties and carefully gone through the documents.
Goutam Ghosh was electrocuted by coming in contact with electric wire while working in his grazing ground on 26th May of 2016 (Annexure-1). The Post Mortem Report Annexure-1 shows that the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination on 26.05.16 and it was reported by the doctor that the cause of death was due to the effects of electrocution and ante mortem in nature and the age of the person was 40 years.
It is also evident from Annexure-3 that the annual income of the said person was Rs.72,000/- per annum. In the W/V the OP has not denied that Goutam Ghosh has been died due to electrocution.
I have gone through the two judgment relied by the Complainan in Parmila Devi and Ors. Vs. Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and Anr. IV (2008) CPJ 332 and C.G.M. P & O, NPDCL and Ors. Vs. Koppu Duddaranjan and Anr., IV (2008) CPJ, 139 (NC).
I have also perused the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar and Others, I (2002) ACC 271 (SC), I (2002) SLT 149- 2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC), hold in paras 7 and 8 as follows:-
“It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board and if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being who gets unknowingly trapped into, the primary liability to compensate the suffered, is that of the suppliers of the electric energy. So, long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension, the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning off such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road, the electric current there on should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such misshapes.
Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury offered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known in law as ‘Strict Liability’. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence on fault in this way i.e., the concepts of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions”.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and case laws, we are of the view that the OP is the power distribution company and the responsibility to maintain electric lines squarely lies on the OP under Electricity Act, 2003. There lies the deficiency on the part of the OP.
As per the documents issued by HaridasMati Gram Panchayet, Berhampore Block the income of the said deceased was Rs.72,000/- per annum. He was a young person of about 40 years at the time of death (as per the xerox copy of Adhar Card filled by the complainants). It is normal behavior of a person that he must spent 1/3 of his annual income on himself and rest to his family. Therefore, loss comes to his family in respect of income Rs.48,000/- per annum. It will be proper to apply multiplier of 15. Thus applying the multiplier of 15, the total amount comes to Rs.7,20,000/-. The Complainant number 1 and 2 have been deprived of fatherly love of Goutam Ghosh and Complainant No.3 has been deprived of companionship whereas OP No.4 has lost her son, the same cannot be compensated in terms of money.
Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.7,20,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- for loss of companionship and fatherly love. We are not in a position to award litigation cost as the case is registered under legal aid.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 18.09.17 and admitted on 10.10.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, the complaint Case succeeds. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case No. CC/163/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP without cost.
The OP is directed to pay Rs.7,20,000/- as compensation to the Complainants.
The OP is further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony to the Complainants.
All the aforesaid orders must be complied within 60 days from the date of this order and in case of failure it shall carry interest @ 8% per annum payable to the Complainant.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
