West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/34/2022

Smt. Arati Singh, W/O- Late Jadunath Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The D.E. & Divisional Manager, Dakshin Dinajpur (D) Division, WBSEDCL - Opp.Party(s)

Samit Bhowmick

14 Sep 2023

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 35 of Consumer Protection Act,2019 against the Opposite Parties claiming an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-  + Compensation of Rs.70,000/- + Litigation Cost of Rs. 25,000/- .

The fact of the case, in brief, is that Jadunath Singh was the husband of the complainant no.1 and father of the complainant No.2. Jadunath Singh used to cultivate landed properties and maintain his family.  On 10.07.2020 at about 9.30 said Jadunath singh went to the field with the goats and at that relevant point of time the predecessor of the complainant got electric shock near the tin shaded submersible pump room of Subash Chandra mahato son of Late Shib Chanran Mahato of Vill  & P.O. Amrail, P.S. Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur and the said submersible pump room became fully electrified due to open wire of the transformer and thus the predecessor of the complainants got electric shock and after that said Jadunath Singh was removed to Balurghat District Hospital where the doctors declared dead and the post mortem of Jddunath Singh was done and from the said post mortem report it is found that the cause of death is due to the effects of Electrocution and the nature of injury was sustained was Electric Burning.

The complainant got the Post Mortem Report on 01.08.2020 and due to the Covid-19 pandemic the complainant no.1 could not communicate the matter before all the responsible authority of the Electricity Department for proper enquiry for getting for proper compensation due to the death of Jadunath singh.  The complainant no.1 being wife of deceased,  on 10.08.2020 went to the office of the opposite parties and also before the Local police Station to file written application as to the incident but the authority declined to receive any application or complaint and as such the complainant compelled to return back and intimated the matter before the Divisional Engineer WBSEDCL, Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur through the letter dated 10.08.2020 which was posted on 11.08.2020 for proper enquiry and also for affording the compensation to the complainant  on account of death of her husband due to Electrocution. The complainant no.1 also through the letter dated 10.08.2020 which was posted on 11.08.2020 to the Inspector in Charge, Balurghat Police Station. Though, the Department of Electricity is solely responsible for the said incident as there was open wire from the transformer and by the said open wire of the transformer the tin shaded submersible room of Subash Chandra Mahato got electrified but the authority did not conducted any enquiry for allotment of the compensation to the complainant. The complainant No.1 for the said reason again on 19.09.2020 went to the office of the opposite parties and also before the Superintendent of Police Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur and the authority again did not receive the applications of the complainant and compelled her to return back. The complainant for the said reason on 19.11.2020 through the letter dated 19.08.2020 which was posted on 21.08.2020 intimated the authority i.e. the opposite party No.1 and also to the superintendent of police, Dakshin Dinajpur for taking necessary steps towards the enquiry and also for allotment of the compensation to the complainant on account of death of her husband due to electrocution. But the authority even after the same kept mum and did not take any reasonable steps towards the matter.

The opposite parties are the authority for the proper maintenance and preservation and protection of the electric lines and transformers and electric wires running from the transformer to the consumers for effecting, the service connection. As the opposite parties did not take any precaution and as the opposite parties did not maintained the electric lines properly and as such there was open wire left from the transformer from which the tin shaded submersible pump room of Subash Chandra Mahato became electrified and for which Jadunath Sing got electric shock which resulted his death and the opposite parties are solely responsible for the death of Jadunath singh. That the opposite parties have allotted the submersible pump in favour of said Subash Chandra Mahato in the tin shaded room which is not expected from the side of the electricity distribution company and the electricity distribution company cannot allow the tin shaded premises or room for the use of submersible pump and the opposite parties ought to have taken percaution before effecting service connection in the tin shaded room which is not permissible in the eye of law and the electricity department ought not to have effected the service connection in the tin shaded room for submersible pump room in open field from which at any time any un-warranted incident can happens. The death of Jadunath singh happened due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and also due to improper maintenance of the Electric wire by the Opposite Parties.

The Opposite Parties use to provide electric line through the field in the village area through high extension line and then to the transform and from the said transformer to the Electric meter of the submersible pump rooms of the villagers and similarly in the same way the service connection ought to be effected with due and proper care to the tin shaded submersible pumps so that no unwarranted incident took place by the electric wires running from the mainline or from the transformer but in the instant case there was open wire from the transformer and from which the tin shaded submersible pump room of Subash Chandra Mahato got electrified and from there the husband of the complainant no.1 got electric shock and died due to Electrocution. There is responsibility of the opposite parties to maintain the wire in proper manner so that no such incident or accident can be happened from the said electric lines. The opposite parties are solely responsible for the proper maintenance of  the wire and the Opposite Parties are also responsible to keep the wire in such condition so that there is no chance of Electrification from the electric wire of Electricity Department can happened. There is responsibility of O.Ps to provide the electric line through proper way so that no accident or incident can take place due to electrification through electric wire. The cause of death of Jadunath singh is due to Electrocution which is caused from the electrified tin shaded submersible pump room of Subash Chandra mahato due to open wire from the transformer of the Electricity Department and the Opposite Parties are solely responsible for the death of Jadunath singh. Hence, the opposite parties are solely liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant No.1 repeatedly visited the office of the opposite parties to get proper enquiry and also to get the compensation but the complainant did not get any reasonable answer no any compensation from the opposite parties. Due to the illegal activities and deficiency in service of the opposite parties the husband of the complainant suffered death and thus the complainants became under distressed condition as the family of Jadunath Singh depends upon the income of Jadunath Singh and due to loss of the life of Jadu Nath Singh complainants sustained a great irreparable loss and injury and also lost their predecessor forever and the opposite parties are solely responsible for the same and opposite parties are also liable to compensate to complainants for the aforesaid illegal activities and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Having no alternative the Complainant filed the instant case for relief as prayed in the plaint.

            Notice was duly served upon the opposite Parties and after receiving the notice, both the Opposite Parties appear before this Commission and filed their joint written version..

             By filing written version, the Opposite Parties have stated that the Consumer Subash Chandra Mahato is the actual owner of the submersible pump and L.T.O.H    line is drawn with covered wire and any wire snapping of L.T.O.H. line/short circuit is not found during inspection done by the persons of the Opposite Parties. The Consumer Subhash Chandra Mahato did not lodge any complaint regarding any electrical fault before the accident to the Opposite Parties. The deceased was not a Consumer of the Opposite Parties and no question of deficiency in service arise here from the part of the Opposite Parties and this is not the proper forum to adjudge this complaint. The Opposite Parties seek a hearing on the maintainability ground of the present complaint.  The Consumer Subhash Chandra Mahato is wholly liable for this accident he did not maintain the electric connection properly.  There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties so; the case should be dismissed with cost.

             To prove his case, the complainants have filed photo copies of -

(i)  Death Certificate of Jadunath Singh

(ii)  Complaints dated 10.08.2020

(iii)  Complaints dated 19.09.2020

(iv) RTI application and reply of RTI application through memo no.1119/DEB/RTI dated 21.09.2020 with the annexed documents of postmortem report, challan of the body of the deceased and inquest report

(v) Original Photographs 4 nos.

(vi) Voter card and Aadhar card of the deceased

(vii) voter card and Aadhar card of Complainant no.1

(viii) Postmortem report of deceased

(ix)  Aadhar card of Complainant no.2

           On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have filed a single document in support of their defense -

     (1) Extract of chapter 1 of C.P.Act, 2019

            In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration - 

       POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

 

         1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties?

     2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties?

    3.  Whether the Complainants are entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

                                           DECISION WITH REASON

 

           We have heard argument by Ld. Advocates for the sides at length. We have also gone through the evidence on affidavit, cross examinations and written argument filed by both the parties. Perused the documents filed by  the Complainants..  

            At the time of argument Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated the fact of the case as mentioned in the plaint. He further submitted that the  no inspection has been done by the Opposite Parties and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainants have successfully proved their case. So, the Complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for.

          In support of his contention, Ld. Advocate for the Complainants cited an observation held in The station Manager Vs Smt. Nirmala Maity on 25.05.2012 by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

        

             On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties also narrated his defense case as mentioned in the written version. Ld. Advocates for the Opposite Parties further submitted that the Complainants are not a consumers.. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. So, the Complainants are not entitled to get compensation or any other relief as prayed for.          

             Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

Point No. 1     

  

            It is alleged by the Opposite Parties that the Complainants or the deceased are not a consumer under the Opposite Parties but it is Subhash Chandra Mahato who is consumer under the Opposite Parties. But the said Subhash Chandra Mahato neither filed any complaint before the Opposite Parties nor before the concerned police station prior to the occurrence of the incident regarding bad condition of the electric connection supplied to him  In this respect we relied on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, reported in IV (2008) CPJ 139 (NC), wherein Their Lordship have held that the villagers pay taxes to the village Panchayats and power consumption charges to electricity company, are consumers and the Complainant being beneficiary to the service provided by the company entitled to compensation. In the said judgment, it has been further observed that the villagers have right for payment of taxes and seeking facilities such as street lights, drainage etc. In view of the above mentioned judgment, we are of opinion that the husband of the Complainant no.1 and father of the Complainant  No.2 was a consumer under the Opposite Parties as per section (2)(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

         Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.  

 

Point Nos. 2 & 3 

 

            Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.    

             It has not been denied by the Opposite Parties that  on 10.07.2020 at about 9.30 said Jadunath singh did not go to the field with the goats and at that relevant point of time the predecessor of the complainant got electric shock near the tin shaded submersible pump room of Subash Chandra mahato son of Late Shib Chanran Mahato of Vill  & P.O. Amrail, P.S. Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur and the said submersible pump room became fully electrified due to open wire of the transformer and thus the predecessor of the complainants got electric shock and after that said Jadunath Singh was removed to Balurghat District Hospital where the doctors declared him dead.  

       It appears that as many as four witnesses (including three villagers) have filed their affidavit in chief and supported the case of the Complainants. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have filed affidavit in chief of one witness. On perusal of the postmortem report, it appears that Death was caused due to the effect of electrocution which is ante mortem in nature.   We perused the death certificate of Jadunath singh, original photographs of the place of occurrence where we find that the electric connection has been supplied through wooden pole from the transformer to near the tin shed submersible pump room of  Subhash Chandra Mahato which is unsafe condition and naked condition also. We also perused the application of the Complainant filed before the Opposite Parties to inspect the P.O. and provide compensation to the Complainants. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Opposite Parties that the consumer Subhash Chandra  Mahato who is the actual owner of the submersible pump and L.T.O.H line is drawn with covered wire and any snapping of L.T.O.H line / short circuit is not found during inspection done by the Opposite Parties persons. But the Opposite Parties failed to produce the said inspection report before the Commission so, the plea that the Opposite Parties have made inspection of the P.O. is not believable and considerable.

           On perusal of the questionnaire of the Complainant and the question no.7 it is asked that from the post-mortem report it is found that the death is due to effect of electrocution and the nature of injury was electric burning or not. In reply the Opposite Party has stated that it is fact.

On perusal of the observation held in The station Manager Vs Smt. Nirmala Maity on 25.05.2012 by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission we find that It is the look out 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 the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.  

             In the instant case, we opine that the Opposite Parties are the authorities for the proper maintenance and preservation and protection of the electric lines and transformers and electric wires running from transformers to the consumers for effecting the service connection. But such precaution has not been taken by the Opposite Parties which resulted such incident. Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties is clear as day light.

 Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant. 

Hence, it is                           

                                                       O R D E R E D

           

 That the Consumer Case No. 34 of 2022 is hereby allowed on contest in part against the Opposite Parties but with cost.

  The Opposite Parties are directed to pay  a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in total out of which Rs.1,50,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the Complainant no.1 and Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the Complainant no.2 within 45 days from the date of passing of this order failing which the Complainants are at liberty to execute the order according to law.

  In the event of failure of payments of the above mentioned amounts to the Complainants within the prescribed period, an interest @ 9% will accrue till the full realization from the date of passing of this order.

  The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10.000/- towards litigation cost within the prescribed period.

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.