JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. These two separate complaints were filed by Shri Satbir, father and Smt. Brahma, mother of deceased-Surinder, and second complaint was filed by Smt. Sudesh widow of Shri Subhash and his two children and his parents. On 5.8.2010, Subhash, Krishna and Surender were uprooting the grass from the paddy crop due to which, Surender and Subhash suffered the electric current and died on the spot. A report was lodged with the police. The above said complainants submitted claim before the Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. to be referred as UHBVNL now onwards, but they rejected the claim made by the complainants. 2. The complaints were filed before the District Forum. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the deceased were not the consumers. The complainants filed appeals before the State Commission which allowed the complaints and granted compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each to both groups of complainants (total being Rs.3,00,000/-) alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. 3. Aggrieved by that orders, the present revision petitions have been filed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has invited our attention to the report submitted by SDO OP S/Divn. UHBVN Naguran, relevant part of which is quoted hereunder: “So, as per above the F.A. could be avoided, if the deceased informed to the Nigam staff regarding broken wire of LT line accordingly and also not try to himself connect the wire without observe safety rule. It is concluded due to negligence of the deceased the above F.A. was occurred. No any official/officers are found responsible for his accident directly or indirectly.” It is contended that the police also did not take any action against the opposite parties. Our attention was further drawn towards the complaint which mentions: “…. But, the Police did not register any case against the Opposite Parties for causing death due to negligent act and reported this incident as accident without any fault or negligence of anybody. This report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. conducted by the Police clearly established that both the deceased had died due to electric shock suffered by them on account of falling of live electric wire in the water of paddy where both of them were working.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that Subhash was the co-sharer of the above said land and another person, Surender was completely stranger and as such they are not consumers. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also displayed his surprise that these two persons died but nothing happened to Krishna, who had accompanied them. It clearly goes to show that these two persons had come into contact with the wire and therefore died. 7. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. The report of SDO carries exiguous value. He is an interested person. He did not care to put a date when this report was made though it mentions that the accident took place on 5.8.2010. Moreover, his report carries no value. If deceased persons and Krishna were aware of the broken wire, they would have informed the opposite parties immediately. It is difficult to fathom why there was a broken wire. This clearly smacks of negligence on the part of the opposite parties. No value can be pinned with the report given by the police. The post mortem report itself shows that both the deceased died due to electric shock. Moreover, this fact is not disputed by the opposite parties. 8. The State Commission was pleased to observe : “In the light of these cogent and convincing evidence the opposite parties cannot be stabled from their liability as they are under an obligation to keep the electric wire intact instead of loose so that the same would not fell due to wind blow and in case any such incident happened it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. No doubt the human lives are very precious and any death of a human person which takes place in an unlawful way of a young man needs to be taken care while deciding the question of compensation. It is an admitted fact that at the time of death the deceased was young man of 28 years of age and was the bread earner of the family. It is also not disputed that the father of the deceased is an old man and the deceased used to take care of his parents, wife and children. No doubt after the untimely death of deceased his children and parents have lost their hope of life and the future of the small children has become dark. Since two human lives suffered untimely and unnatural death only because of the negligence on the part of the Nigam, therefore, the opposite parties liable to pay compensation to the complainants.” 9. The next submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that this matter requires evidence before the civil court and at the initial stage the complainants should have approached the civil court. This argument is devoid of merits. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act also provides jurisdiction to the consumer fora as well and the learned counsel could not deny this fact. 10. The revision petitions have no merits and the same are therefore, dismissed with costs. The opposite parties are directed to pay further costs of Rs.10,000/- each to both the complainants within a period of one month from today otherwise it will carry interest @9% per annum. 11. As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, dasti order be furnished to him till Monday. | 
