STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :          85 of 2015

Date of Institution:        22.01.2015

Date of Decision :         09.02.2015

1.     The A.G.M./SDO, DHBVNL, Atela Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

2.     The Executive Engineer-cum-D.G.M., DHBVNL, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

3.     The S.E. “OP” Circle, DHBVNL, Bhiwani.

4.     The Managing Director, DHBVNL, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

1.      Sunita widow of Paramjeet s/o Sh. Singh Ram

2.      Bharti minor daughter

3.      Sachin minor-son

4.      Jyoti minor daughter of Paramjeet and Sunita through their mother Sunita natural Guardian of the minors

          All Residents of Village Chhapar, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                                      Respondents-Complainants

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL):

Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘DHBVNL’) and others - opposite parties are in appeal against the order dated December 2^nd, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Bhiwani.  For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“……the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the respondents are directed:-

1.      To pay Rs.6 lacs (rupees six lacs) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.

2.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.

Note: 50% of the awarded amount be deposited in the name of minors in equal shares in a Nationalized Bank and the same shall be withdrawn on the date of attaining their majority”.

2.      Paramjit (since deceased)-husband of Sunita- and father of Bharti, Sachin and Jyoti-complainants was working in his fields. He came in contact of live wire of the Electricity Department and got electrocuted to death on account of negligence of DHBVNL.  DHBVNL did not pay any compensation to the respondents. Hence, they filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The complainants placed on record postmortem examination report  (Annexure C-5) issued by General Hospital, Charkhi Dadri, wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the death occurred due to electrocution. Daily Dairy Report (Annexure C-6), Inquest Report (Annexure C-3) also corroborate the version of the respondents. No contrary evidence was led by the appellants to disprove this fact.

4.      From the evidence led by the respondents, it is proved that Paramjeet died due to electrocution while came in contact of live electric wire installed in his fields due to the negligence on the part of the DHBVNL.  At the time of death, the deceased was 34 years of age.  He was agriculturist.  In view of this, the District Forum rightly awarded compensation of Rs.6.00 lacs to the legal heirs of the deceased.  So, the order passed by the District Forum was justified and requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondents-complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

CL