Haryana

Karnal

CC/146/2017

Smt Amandeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, Utri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

17 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 146 of 2017

                                                          Date of instt. 27.04.2017

                                                          Date of Decision 17.01.2019

 

1. Smt. Amandeep Kaur wife of Late Shri Gagandeep Singh.

2. Master Karamjot Singh (Minor-son) of Late Shri Gagandeep Singh,

3. Smt. Joginder Kaur (mother) wife of Shri Jaswant Singh.

4. Jaswant Singh alias Yash (father) son of Shri Santokh Singh, resident of village Karampur, Tehil Gharaunda, District Karnal at present resident of Mehmadpur Chowk, Kunjpura District Karnal.

 

                                                                      …….Complainants.

                                        Versus

 

1. The Chairman, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

2. The XEN, City Division, Utri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL), Rajv Gandhi Vidyut Bhawan, Sector-12, Karnal.

3. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL), Newal District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri S.S.Moonak Advocate for complainants.

                   Shri Amit Gupta Advocate for OPs.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainants had Gagandeep Singh (since deceased) had suffered electric shock/current on 30.05.2015 about 5.00 p.m. within the area of village Kunjpura, District Karnal while he was working in the Agriculture fields of Surinder Singh son of Shri Hukam Singh r/o village Kunjpura and he succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment. The complainants are the legal heirs of deceased. On 30.05.2015 Gagandeep Singh was working at the agriculture fields of Surinder Singh (Bablu), he suffered electric shock from the transformer’s cable/wire installed in the agricultural fields of Surinder Singh, due to breakage of the insulator of the transformer, the earth line/cable/wire of the said transformer became live, due to which Gagandeep Singh suffered electric current/shock. From the place of occurrence, Gagandeep Singh was shifted to Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College and Civil Hospital Karnal, but due to his serious condition he was referred to specialized hospital, he was taken to Balajee Hospital, Karnal, however his condition was serious so he was referred to PGI Chandigarh but could not survive the electric shock and he succumbed to injuries on the same day at about 9.00 p.m. on the way when he was taken to PGI Chandigarh. The aforesaid incident occurred due to carelessness, negligence, bad act and conduct of the officials of the OP and their concerned officials who are responsible for the maintenance and power care of transmission lines, insulator etc. A DDR no.011 dated 4.8.2015 was recorded with Police Station Kunjpura. After the death of Gagandeep Singh, the complainants approached the OPs 2 and 3 for compensation and for taking legal action against the employees, who was working at that time but no response was given by the OPs. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard tot neither the complainants or their predecessor-Gagandeep Singh are/is a “consumer/s” of the OPs; jurisdiction; cause of action and locus standi. On merits,  It is pleaded that complainants have wrongly alleged that Gagandeep Singh suffered electric shock due to breakage of the insulator of the transformer, due to which the earth line/cable/wire of the said transformer become live and that the OPs officials failed to maintain the transmission lines, insulator etc. properly, due to which current flowed in the cable/wire, due to which Gagandeep Singh got electrocuted, whereas the fact is that Gagandeep Singh without intimation to the officials of the OP and without having the qualification, knowledge or the experience of a electrician, went to the fields of Surinder alias Bablu to repair the starter of the motor installed by the said Surinder on his tubewell. Gagandeep Singh without ensuring that the electricity current is cut off before mendling with the electrical fittings, got electrocuted while trying to repair the LT cable/starter installed at the tubewell connection of said Surinder. On coming to know of the accident, officials of the OP Nigam visited the site and it then revealed that the G.O. switch of the transformer Sop to Hukam Singh on 11KV Nali Kalan AP feeder was in open position and the LT PVC cable was connected to the transformer end but was not connected to the starter end. Infact, Gagandeep Singh suffered electrocution because of his own negligence without ensuring that the GO switch of the transformer is cut off and electricity supply to the starter is cut off, before he tries to mend the starter. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainants tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 9.5.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Suresh Kumar Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed the evidence 22.11.2018.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainants is that on 30.05.2015 Gagandeep Singh (since deceased) had suffered electric shock/current, while he was  working in the agricultural fields of Surinder Singh and he succumbed to the injuries during the cause of treatment. Due to breakage of the insulator of the transformer, the earth line/cable/wire of the said transformer became live, due to which Gagandeep Singh suffered electric current/shock. The aforesaid accident/incident occurred due to carelessness/negligence, bad act and conduct and lack of proper care on the part of the officials of the OPs and their concerned official/field employees. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the authorities IV (2012)CPJ 805 (NC) titled as Prakash Gajendrabhai Desai & Ors. Versus Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. & Ors.; III(2013) CPJ 39B (CN)(AP) titled as Alwala Mangamma & Ors Versus Northern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors.; 1(2013) CPJ 159 (NC) titled as Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Verus Parthu & Anr.; III(2008) CPJ 135 titled as Rakesh K. Dhawan & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.; 1(2012) CPJ 429 (NC) titled as Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Versus Bhagwana Ram & Ors. and 1(2012) CPJ 356 titled as Ganga Patil Versus Gescom & Anr.

7.             On the other hand the case of the OPs are that Gagandeep Singh (since deceased) without intimation to the officials of the OPs Nigam and without having the qualification, knowledge or the experience of a electrician, went to the field of Surinder Singh, to repair the starter of the motor installed by the said Surinder Singh on his tubewell. Gagandeep Singh without ensuring that the electricity current is cut off before mending with the electrical fittings, got electrocuted while trying to repair the LT cable/starter installed at the tubewell connection of said Surinder Singh. On coming to know of the accident, officials of the OPs Nigam visited the site and it then revealed that the G.O. Switch of the Transformer SOP to Hukam Singh on 11 KV Nali Kalan AP feeder was in open position and the LT PVC cable was connected to the starter end. Gagandeep Singh suffered electrocution because of his own negligence and misadventure in trying to mend the starter of the motor of the tubewell of Surinder Singh without ensuring that the GO switch of the transformer is cut off and the electricity supply to the starter is cut off.  Learned counsel or the OPs relied upon the authorities 2016(1) CPJ 558 case titled as Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Apepdct) Versus Janni Suramma &  2 ors.; 2002(3) CPJ 138 case titled as Haryana State Electricity Board Versus Rattan Lal and 2011(1) CPJ 420 case titled as C.G.State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus D.Prakash Rao & Anr.

8.             Question is only arises whether the deceased Gagandeep Singh falls within purview of consumer or not?

9.             Admittedly, Gagandeep Singh died due to electrocution. On coming to know the accident, officials of the OPs Nigam visited the site and it then revealed that the GO switch of the transformer SOP to Hukam Singh on 11KV Nali Kalan AP feeder was in open position and the LT PVC cable was connected to the transformer end but was not connected to the starter end. As per Ex.R2 said case was converted into fatal accident from non fatel accident case. As per the report of Engineer G.K. Ahuja Ex.R3, it seems that Gagandeep Singh may had forgotten to open the GO switch and due to live wire this accident may had  been occurred which converted into fatal accident. As per the statement of ALM Gushan Sharma Ex.R4 and Telu Ram J.E.I Ex.R5, Gagandeep was not authorized person for that work.

10.            Thus, when we consider the evidences available on record in its totality, then we find that sufficient material is not available on the basis of which it can be held that the incident of electrocution of son of the complainant happened on account of some negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

12.            “Deficiency” has been defined under section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which says that the “deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.” In fact of the present case, there appears nothing on the basis of which any action or inaction of the OPs herein can be said to be “deficiency” in their part.

13.            The provisions of Rule 30 of the Indian Electricity Rule, 1956 are also pertaining to mention, whereby a duty has been imposed upon the consumer regarding safety of the service line and for insuring that the service line is properly insulated and secured, so that it can be saved from any damage by electrical, mechanical or chemical substance and necessary measures may be taken by the consumer in this regard. Thus, on the basis of these provisions it appears that it was the duty of the consumer also to take full care of his supply line and if the deceased himself tried to mend the starter without caring, as found by Engineer G.K. Ahuja in his report Ex.R3, then he can simply blaming his luck for the incident and not the OPs. Moreover, complainant himself got lodged DDR Ex.C4, no allegation was levied upon the OPs in Ex.C4

14.            Thus, we are of the considered view that deceased does not fall within the purview of consumer and complaint filed by the complainants was not maintainable before Consumer Fora and they should have approached other appropriating authority for redressal of their grievance. The authorities cited by the complainant are not applicable to the present case and the authorities cited by the OPs are applicable to the present case.

15.            In view of above observation, the present complaint does not fall within purview of consumer and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. However, complainants would at liberty to approach the appropriate court of jurisdiction for redressal of their grievances and in view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, complainant would be entitled to get the benefit of provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such civil suit. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 17.01.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                        Member                       Member