::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.25/2017.
Date of filing: 25.04.2017.
Date of disposal: 31.03.2018.
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: 1. Kashinath S/o Tukaram,
Age: 56 years, Occ: Labour,
R/o Village Katti Tugaon
Now at Village Chittawadi
Tq and Dist: Bidar.
2. Sughanda W/o Kashinath,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Labour,
R/o Village Katti Tugaon
Now at Village Chittawadi
Tq and Dist: Bidar.
(By Sri. B.Krishnappa, Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) The Executive Engineer (Elecl) O and M
Bidar division Bidar GESCOM Bidar.
2) The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elecl)
GESCOM Bidar Sub Division Bhalki Dist: Bidar.
3) The Junior Engineer,
GESCOM Sub Division Bhalki.
(By Sri. Mahesh.S.Patil, Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
The complainants have filed the present complaint against the opponents seeking compensation on account of death of their son by name Ranjit on 24.07.2016 due to electrical accident. The gist of the complaint is as follows.
2 That, late Ranjit son of the complainants was employed as Tractor Driver of one Sanjeev S/o Basawaraj Bashetty R/o Katti Tugaon village. It is further stated that when the Tractor driving was not happening said late Ranjit used to graze cattle of his employer Sanjeev. He was being paid monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- together with daily bhatta of Rs.200/-. He was the only earning member of the family.
3. It is avered by the complainants that on 24.07.2016, late Ranjit was herding the cattle of his employer in the laters’ land at village of the employer Katti Tugaon. At the time the electrical wire from the main pole was cut and had fallen on deceased Ranjit causing electrocution, and consequential burn injury all over the body and death on the spot. The complainants filed complaint with the jurisdictional Dhanura Police Station as a result of which a case was registered vide UDR NO.14/2016 u/s 174 C.R.P.C.. Investigation was made and the body was subjected to post mortem at Bhalki Government hospital. The complaints claim that they had spent more than Rs.20,000/- for carrying the dead body and performing funerals.
4. The complainant further aver that their deceased son was 22 year old hale and healthy, gainfully employed and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as salary together with Rs.200/- as daily Bhatta. The sudden and untimely death of Late Ranjit has deprived the complainants of their maintenance and also has caused mental shock, and agonies. There by the complainants are before us seeking a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and interest their on.
5. The opponents entering into appearance have filed their written version in which they claim that the entire case is false and baseless and further that the complainants are not consumers where fore the complaint filed by them is not maintainable. The opponents have denied the fact of employment and earning of Late Ranjit and also about the fact that the electric wire was snapped and had fallen down on the deceased. Rather the opponents claim that the deceased was trying to cross over a service wire which was illegally hooked to draw power and to pump water from the canal. The opponents claim that the electrical accident happened due to the negligent act of the deceased by touching the illegal service wire which was skinned. The opponents as a whole deny their liability to pay any compensation to the complainants.
6. Both sides have led evidences and had filed written argument trying to justify their respective stands. The complainants only had submitted documents listed at the end of this order.
7. Considering the claims and rival contention of the parties concerned the following point arise for our consideration out of which the preliminary point would be about the locus stand of the complainants to maintain this case.
- Do the complainant prove that they are consumers under the opponents?
- Do the complainants prove that they are entitled for compensation?
- What order?
8. Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-
Point No.1. In the negative.
Point No.2. Does not survive for consideration.
Point No.3. Does not surviver for consideration.
:: REASONS ::
9. In the instant case going though the averments and submission of number of documents from Annexure A to K (I omitted) there is not a single document nor there is any averment at any point of time that, the complainants by any means or their deceased son was ever consumer (s) as provided for in section 2(1)(d) of the consumer Protection Act which is spelled down below.
Consumer means any person who:-
i. Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods resale or for any commercial purpose; or
ii. [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
[Explanation: for the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment]
10. The complainants have also not canvassed before us regarding their status of consumer. They have never submitted any case law considered and delivered by any higher fora or courts of records. Not a single scrap of paper has been submitted evidencing that, complainants are consumers under the opponent. There by, we hold that the complainants cannot maintain the present complaint and proceed to pass the following order.
::ORDER::
- The complaint is dismissed.
- The complainants would be at liberty to institute case (s) under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act or any other appropriate law for the time being in force in court (s) of competent jurisdiction, if advised.
- There would be no order as to costs or other wise.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 31st day of March 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure. A- FIR u/s 174 C.R.P.C. in U.D.R. No.14/2016 of
Dhannura Police Station Bhalki, Bidar. - Annexure. B– Complaint.
- Annexure. C– Inquest report.
- Annexure. D—Post mortem report.
- Annexure. E – Office copy of legal notice date: 04.03.2017.
- Annexure. F& G- Postal acknowledgement.
- Annexure. H - Reply legal notice date: 20.03.2017.
- Annexure. J& K- Copy of Voter ID Card of complainants.
Document produced by the Opponents.
–Nil-
NIl
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Kashinath S/o Tukaram (complainant No.1)
Opponent No.1
- R.W.1- Sri Basawaraj S/o Apparao Patil Executive Engineer
GESCOM Bidar.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
