-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.76/2018.
Date of filing: 25.10.2018.
Date of disposal: 30.05.2019.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: Jagannath, S/o Sangappa Mulge,,
Age:50 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Village Islampur, Tq. & Dist.Bidar
Now at New Housing Board Colony, Bidar.
( By Sri. K.Bhadrashetty, Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: The Executive Engineer,
GESCOM Sub- Division,
Kamthana, Tq & Dist. Bidar.
(By Sri. Mahesh S.Patil., Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
The complainant has approached this Forum by filing a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service against the opponent. The facts alleged by him are as follows:-
2. That on the occasion of marriage of niece (Sister’s daughter) by name Kavitha D/o Gundamma and Rajappa at Nizampur village, the complainant his wife Shobha ( the deceased) and other family members had gone to the house of Rajappa. Said Rajappa has obtained electricity connection from the Opponent and the electricity transmission line run dangerously proximate to the house of Rajappa. It is stated that, as such while inhabiting the house of Rajappa on 21.06.2018 at about 8.30 a.m. deceased Shobha had taken wet clothes to spread it for drying process. While putting the clothes, the loose live wires got touched and she sustained injuries due to electrical shock. The injured was brought by the relatives to Bidar Institute of Medical Science where she breathed her last at about 10.50. a.m. It is further avered that, on information the New Town Police Station of Bidar has registered a case vide U.D.R.no.17/2018 U/s.174 Cr.P.C. and has conducted enquiry. The dead body was subjected to postmortem in the same hospital where the cause of death has been due to electrical shock. The complainant’s demand for compensation not having been addressed by the Opponent, the present complaint has been filed.
3. The complainant claims that, his wife was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing tailoring work and his prayer for claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is just and reasonable.
4. The sole opponent upon notice has appeared through counsel and has filed written version and evidence affidavit countering the assertions of the complainant and his evidence affidavit.
5. The opponent has denied the entitlements of the complainant as Consumer but, has admitted that, relative Rajappa was the Consumer under GESCOM. The connection was provided with Bhagyajyothi scheme with permission to consume power to the extent of 40 watts. The opponent’s failure to maintain service line properly and the death of the complainant’s wife has been denied. Again a futile contention juxtaposed to the admission noted supra has been taken that, Rajappa had taken the connection without permission of the opponent. It is further stated that, the fact of death was not informed to the opponent and that death was due to negligent act of the deceased and her relative Rajappa. The opponent’s evidence affidavit reiterates the contents of the written version and quantum of earning of the deceased has been denied.
6. Taking into view the rival contentions of both sides, the following points arise for our consideration.
- Would be the complainant considered as a Consumer?
- Has the complainant proved the fact of death of his wife Shobha due to electrical shock ?
- Can the opponent avail immunity from the case claiming that, the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased and her relative Rajappa?
- What orders?
7. Our answers to the points raised are as follows:-
- In the positive.
- In the positive.
- In the negative.
- As per the final orders owing to the following:-
:: REASONS ::
8. It being in the admission of the opponent that, the relative of the complainant was a consumer by obtaining electricity connection under Bhagyjothi scheme. The same status would apply to the family members and other relatives visiting his homestead and the denial of the opponent carries no weightage and hence we answer this point positively.
9. In furtherance of the case, the complainant has filed detail evidence affidavit and also basic, vital documents like F.I.R. and complaint (Annexures A & B) Inquest proceeding (Annexure-c), Post-mortem report (Annexure-D) and death certificate (Annexure-E). All these documents have remained unchallenged and conclusively prove that, the wife of the complainant Shobha died on 21.06.2018 due to electrical shock. Hence we answer this point accordingly.
10. The opponent has raised a hue and cry that, the electrical connection was obtained without permission. The admission of the opponent about the Bhagyajyothi connection belies it’s assertions. It is settled law that “Qui approbate, nemo reprobate”. No sane, rational and scientific principle would permit the opponent to run electricity power lines negligently and recklessly proximate to a house hold putting the lives of the inmates in peril. As a matter of fact, the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case reported in III (2010) DHCVNL V/s Vidya Devi has been pleased to hold as hereunder.
“ Electricity companies transmitting energy are duty bound to maintain and ensure safety and security of persons, animals and other objects and when exposed wires cause damages the service provider has to compensate losses”. The same principal was further reiterated in the case reported in 2016 (I) CPR 269”. |
Hence, taking a cue from the Hon’ble National Commission, we answer this point in the negative.
11. Coming to determine a just compensation for the complainant, we observe though a claim has been made that, the deceased wife was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- by tailoring work, no evidence has been led to that effect. Hence, a reasonable guess work has to be made considering the present days social scenario and also even if it is asumed that, the deceased was only a house wife, her contribution to the family in fiscal terms has to be reasonably computed. We therefore calculate her monthly contribution to the family as Rs.7,500/- per month out of which a sum of Rs.2,500/- has to be deducted towards her personal expenses. That, leaves us with a figure of Rs.5,000/-per month.
12. The age of deceased at the time of death was 35 years as would be evident in the Police records and also Postmortem report. In the case of Smt.Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in MANU/ SC/ 0606/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thread barely analysing the art of computing just multiplier, keeping into gaze the Davis method, Nance Method, case laws laid down in Susana Thomas and Thrilokchand cases and scores of other cases, at para-21 of the Judgement prescribed that, for a victim within the age group of 30 to 35 years. Appropriate multiplier would be 16. Hence the quantum of compensation works out to be Rs.5,000/- X 12 X 16 =Rs.9,60,000/- calculated conservatively. To this figure have to be added a sum of Rs.10,000/-as loss of consortium, another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate together with further Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus altogether the entitlement of the complainant works out to be in a sum of Rs. 9,80,000/- and therefore we proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
- The complaint is allowed.
- As the complainant has confined his claim at Rs. 5,00,000/-notwithstanding the calculation made by us above the opponent is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with interst @ 12% p.a. to be calculated from the date of complaint till realization.
- A sum of Rs. 5,000/- is further awarded towards cost of litigation.
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30th day of May 2019).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.A- F.I.R. in U.D.R.No. 17/2018 of New Town P.S.Bidar.
- Annexure.B– complaint, dt.21.06.2018.
- Annexure.C- Inquest report in U.D.R. no. 17/2018 above.
- Annexure.D– Post mortem report.
- Annexure.E- Death certificate.
- Annexure.F- AADHAR card of complainant.
- Annexure.G- Office copy of legal notice.
Document produced by the Opponent.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Sri Jagannath, S/o Sangappa Mulge (Complainant).
Opponent.
- R.W.1- Sri. Ravi kumar, S/o Siddaramappa,A.E.E., Electrical, O & M
Sub-Division Kamthana & another.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
