DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.44/2008. Date of filing of the Case: 26.06.2008 Complainant | Opposite Parties | Bodra Tudu S/O. Late Bishan Tudu On behalf of two minor sons of deceased couple namely – Chhabi Tudu and Jetna Tudu Vill. Chongtar (Saharpur), P.O. & P.S. Gazole, Dist. Malda. (W.B.). | 1. | The Director (H & R) W.B.S.E.D.Co. Ltd. Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake City, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata - 700 091. | 2. | The Zonal Manager Bengal Zone, W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd (D) Zone, Berhampur, Murshidabad. | 3. | The Divisional Circle Manager W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd, Divisional Circle Office, 1st floor, Rabindra Avenue, P. O. & Dist. Malda. (W.B). | 4. | The Sr. Station Superintendent W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd, Gazole Sector, P.O. & P.S. Gazole, Dist. Malda. |
Present: | 1. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member |
For the Petitioner : Dipu Laskar, Advocate. Order No. 03 Dt. 15.07.2008 The fact of the case in brief is that the brother of the petitioner Balaram Tudu, 52 yrs and his wife Soma Murmu @Hiramon Tudu, 42 years got electrocuted on 26.12.2007 by high tension electric wires while they were passing on the field at Taherpur under P.S. Gazole, district Malda. On the intimation of death Gazole P.S. U.D. Case No.108/07 dated 27.12.07 was started and during investigation the dead bodies of both the brother & his sister-in-law were sent for Post Mortem examination and submitted final report stating that the deceased got electrocuted by electrical wire though which 11000 volt was passing through. The field at Taherpur under Gazole P.S. The petitioner then approached the Sr. Station Superintendent of WBSED, Co. Ltd. Gazole with a prayer for compensation, issued lawyer’s letter on 27.5.2008, registered with A/D but the electric Dept. made harassment to the petitioner and did not pay compensation for their gross negligence, this gives rise to the instant petition for the reliefs as have been prayed for in the petition of complaint. Hearing on the point of maintainability was fixed on 9.7.2008. No document was filed to prove that the petitioner or the deceased persons were the consumer of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Com. Lt. Hence the ld. advocate for the petitioner prays for time to file documents. Prayer was considered and today is fixed for filing document and further hearing of the case. Petitioner is not present. Ld. advocate for the petitioner files hazira along with a affidavit of one Santosh Kr. Murmu of Saharpur, P.O. Taherpur, P.S. Gazole, Dist. Malda wherein he declared that he, the cousin brother of the petitioner and deceased Balaram Tudu. He also declares that deceased Balaram Tudu used to live in his joint family and have been enjoying electricity being consumer No.G091838 under Gazole Electric Supply. The affidavit is also attached with xerox copies of electricity bills against the said consumer No. and in the name of the declarant for the period from March 2006 to May 2008. Hd. argument of the Ld. advocate and considered. Accordingly to Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upto date, a ‘consumer’ means a person who hires any ‘service’ for consideration which has been promised, paid or partly paid etc. The document placed before this Forum with regard to bills of Gazole Group Electricity against Consumer No.G091838 which stands in the name of Santosh Kr. Murmu of Saharpur but no document is produced to show that deceased Balaram Tudu or Sona Murmu is the consumer of WBSEDCL. It appears from the final of U.D. Case No.108/07 that both the victims belong to village Banshbari, Taherpur. Both the victims got electrocuted in a field of Taherpur by 11000 volts electric line of WBSEDCL and no service line is provided to the consumer from that place of incident. The victims got electrocuted accidentally due to the fall of high-tension line of WBSEDCL passing across the fields of Taherpur as evidenced from the documents filed by the petitioner. In this connection this Forum finds opportunity to refer the observation in a case Assam State Electricity Board Guwahati :VS: Sanjoy Agarwala, AIR 2000 Guwa 170(172): 2000(3) Guwa LR – 469 which reads as follows:- “Plaintiffs suit for damage for injuries sustained as he came in contact with high voltage electricity over head electric line, the jurisdiction of Civil Court held not barred by Sec.33 of Electricity Act under Law of trots for injuries sustained out of criminal negligence, jurisdiction to determine and grant compensation lies only with Civil Court.” In view of above facts and circumstances by no stretch of imagination it can be said that neither the petitioner nor the victims can be termed as ‘consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upto date. Therefore, this case is not maintainable. Proper fees have been paid. Hence, ordered, that Malda D.F. Case No.44/2008 is dismissed in limini with no order as to cost. Let copy of this order be given to the petitioner free of cost at once. Sumana Das A. K. Sinha Member Member D.C.D.R.F., Malda D.C.D.R.F., Malda |
