Tripura

West Tripura

CC/38/2008

Sri Ratan Das, & 1 another. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.K.Debnath, Mr.A.B.Choudhuri.

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 38 of 2008

1. Sri Ratan Das,
S/o- Late Bhupendra Das.

2. Smt. Bipula Das,
W/O- Sri Ratan Das,

Both are the Residents of 
Paizabari, Jaharnagar, 
Ambasa, Dhalai Tripura.            …..…...Complainants.

        VERSUS

1. Chairman Cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura.

2. The Executive Engineer, Electrical,
Ambasa Power Division,
Dhalai Tripura.                .........Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Prahlad Kr. Debnath,
                          Advocate.
                         
For the Opposite parties        :  Sri Pradip Chakraborty,
                      Smt. Sukriti Debnath,
                      Advocates.

 

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  22.08.2016

J U D G M E N T
        It is an old pending case of 2008, return to this court from the National Commission on 30.05.16. National Commission by its order directed this court to decide the case expeditiously. The case was filed long back on 26.05.2008. This Forum dismissed the claim on the ground of maintainability. Thereafter the petitioner filed appeal before the State Forum. State Forum by its judgment dated 11.09.09 directed the respondent, Tripura State Electricity Corporation to pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner  who lost his son by electrocution. The Tripura State Electricity Corporation(TSECL) filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura. That Writ Petition was dismissed. Thereafter appeal filed before the National Commission. National Commission  by its order dated 11.05.16 set aside the order of the State Forum. Direction was given to the corporation to deposit 50% of the Rs.5 lakhs before this Forum for payment to the complainant after taking the undertaking for refunding the amount if the complaint is dismissed by this District Forum. Direction given to the Corporation to appear before this Forum to produce any evidence in support of the contention. Direction given to dispose the case within 4 months from the date of receipt. After receipt of the case O.P., Tripura State Electricity Corporation  given evidence in support of the W.S. earlier filed. Complainant side relied on the evidence earlier given. Only cross examined the O.P.W.

2.        On the basis of rival contention as raised by both the parties we shall now decide the following points;
        (I) Whether death of the son of complainant Kajal Das was due to electrocution by the negligence act of TSECL?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation or any other relief?    
3.            In support of the case petitioner produced the copy of consumer book, PRTC, School Certificate, income certificate, death certificate, FIR, PM Report, Advocate's Notice. Also produced statement on affidavit of 3 witnesses, Ratan Das, P.W.2, Manada Sharma, P.W.3, Ityendra Das.
4.        O.P. TSECL produced the statement on affidavit of Biswahari Jamatia.
5.        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points:
    Findings and decision on the points:
6.        Complainant lost his son Kajal Das on 10.06.2007 by electrocution. He was 22 years old. In the early morning Kajal Das went to their vegetable field to drive out cow. There was a electric post in the filed. A wire from the top of the post was drawn to the ground to fix up the post. Some how that wire get connected with the supply line. Inadvertently he got contact with the electric wire. He died on the spot. Police investigation, postmortem report proved the death as a result of electrocution. In support of this fact of electrocution 3 witnesses given evidences. P.W.2, Manada Sarma stated that electric power was transmitted to the house of the complainant who was a consumer. He also stated that several verbal complaint was given to the power office, Paizabari, Ambasa but no step taken. Ityendra Das, P.W.3 supported the version of complainant and P.W.2. He also stated that electric power was transmitted to the house of the complainant who was a consumer. The wire from the pole was charged by the current and death was caused by electrocution.
7.            Biswahari Jamatia, Deputy General Manager of TSECL in his statement on affidavit stated that the fact is not true. But in the cross examination he admitted that he was not in service at the  time of incident in the year 2007. Thus, there is no contrary  evidence to dispute the fact that death of Kajal Das was by electrocution.
8.            From the evidence of 3 witnesses P.W.1, 2 and 3 negligence of the Power Department clearly comes out. The petitioner was a consumer  of electricity and power was taken from the very post where the son of the complainant died due to electrocution. The consumer book is also produced to support it. From the evidence of 3 witnesses it is clear that death of Kajal Das was caused due to electrocution and negligence of TSECL. Corporation is supposed to maintain the electric post  properly and ensure that wire for fixing purpose of post does not carry electricity. Such matter was brought to the notice of the staff of corporation but no step was taken. Therefore, the negligence of O.P. TSECL is clearly proved. Failure to provide proper service to the consumer is to be termed as deficiency of service by provider.
9.            The complainant was a consumer. Death of his son is caused due to negligence and deficiency of service of the O.P. the victim was only 22 years old who lost his precious life due to callousness and negligence of the corporation officials. No amount can compensate the loss of the complainant who was the father. He had to wait for a long time about 8 years for getting the redress. Considering the age and prospect of the victim Rs.5 lakhs was given as compensation by the state Forum. It was given in the year 2009. But the corporation did not pay it in the last 7 years. 

Considering all the evidences as produced by both the parties we are of the view that petitioner is entitled to get compensation Rs.5 lakhs and also litigation cost. Petitioner had to fight for long time to get the redress. So, litigation cost is given Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousand), total Rs. 5,40,000/-Rupees Five Lakhs forty thousand) is awarded as compensation. Petitioner is also entitled to get interest on the amount @ 8% P.A from the date of filing the complaint i.e., from 26.05.2008 till the date of payment. The O.P., TSECL is directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,40,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 2(Two) months. However, the amount already received i.e., Rs.2,50,000/- is to be deducted.  If the payment is not made within the stipulated period then the amount will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

                     Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.