West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/200/2012

Smt. Pratima Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Mar 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No. 200/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 26/03/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. K. Dutta, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, Advocate.

          

Smt. Pratima Ghosh and three others Vill- Radhaballavpur, P.O.-Kespur, P.S.-Chandrakona, Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. Station Manager. Chandrakona Group Electric Supply. W.B.S.E.D.C.L, P.O & P.S.- 

      Chandrakona,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur

2. The Regional Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Paschim Medinipur, Region K-20 Saratpally Town, and P.S.-  Medinipur P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur; Pin-721101.       ………………………………………………Ops.

        In a nutshell, the Complainant case is that the Complainant’s husband Shib Prasad Ghosh and her brother-in-law Sankar Ghosh were in a joint mess. Sankar Prasad Ghosh died on 18/06/2011. They were the owners of a good amount of agriculture land which was the only source of their livelihood. For irrigation facilities upon their lands Sankar Prasad Ghosh applied for permission of a mini deep Tubewell with West Bengal Ground water Resource, Midnapore and got approval of the same on or about 29/04/2008. He also applied for electrical line for agriculture purpose.

Thereafter the Op. No. 1 W.B.S.E.D.C.L. arranged for provisional quotation of Rs.68,448/-(Sixty eight thousand four hundred forty eight) only and Sankar Prasad Ghosh, The brother-in-law of the Complainant deposited the same by demand draft and as per quotation he also purchased all electrical equipments, meter etc. The Op. approved 3.5 H.P. Transformer on the security deposit.

Here the Complainant alleged that after receiving entire amount, the Op. did not install separate Transformer. On the contrary the Op. arranged for multiple of electricity from the Rural Electric line and also installed meter with consumer No. 213182422 and as per meter reading

Contd………………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

Sankar Prasad Ghosh use to pay the electricity charges regularly. Late Shib Prasad Ghosh husband of the complainant used to look after the cultivation work with his brother Sankar Ghosh.

Sankar Prasad Ghosh requested many times to the Op. for drawing permanent electric supply by fixing permanent pole there as the electric line was almost in a hanging condition which is dangerous and unsafe.

              Unfortunately on or about 18/06/2011 there was tremendous rainfall and storm, the electric connection to the mini Deep Tube well of   Sankar Prasad Ghosh was cut down and fell on the earth resulting electrifying entire area. At that time deceased Shib Prasad Ghosh was near the Tube well. He became electrocuted and died. Over such incident Post Motorm report for the cause of death was due to electrocution.

               The incident has been brought to the notice Op. No. 1, Op. No. 1 made local enquiry and the Complainant supplied all necessary papers, documents etc. as per damage of the Op. No.1. But inspite of repeated demands, the Ops. did not arrange for compensation of the deceased Shib Prasad Ghosh.

               The Complainant alleged that the cause of death was due to the negligence on the part of the Ops.

               The Complainant also alleged that her husband Shib Prasad Ghosh was an able bodied man of sound physique and he used to earn his livelihood by way of cultivation which was only source of income of his entire family and the Complainant with her children depend upon the income of her husband.

                The Complainant having no other way has come before the Ld. Forum by filing this Complain praying for compensation for the accidental death of her husband due to electrocution and for other relief or relieves.

                 The Ops. contested the case by filing written objection stating therein that Shankar Prasad Ghosh has only deposited the quotational amount i.e. Rs.68,446/-(Sixty eight thousand four hundred forty six) only but has not supplied materials Even so, the Ops. arranged the service connection. So, there is no deficiency of service as alleged by the Complainant.      

                   Ops. also stated that they have received the intimation long after eleven days. The Ops. visited the spot through their observer on the next day and there was no defect in the electrocution. So the Ops. did not believe that Shankar Prasad Ghosh died on electrocution. The Op. mentioned the Govt. Act 1611 E Act 2003. It is notified that any type of electric accident it is required to be intimated before the chief electrical inspector within 48 hours from the date of incident.

                The Ops. also submits that the Complainant has failed to establish that there is eye witness regarding that accident. So no claim case lies in the eye of law.

                Contd……………..P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

                The Ops. further state that they issued letter of Pratima Ghosh the mother-in-law of the Complainant requested to send the person to repair the snepped line for obtaining deposition dated 22/03/2012 to depose the matter but nobody has turned up. So the latches on negligence does the arise from the part Ops.

                 The Ops. state that Complainant has failed to establish the case and there is no evidence to prove that Ops. has latches or negligence on their part. So the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed for.

Points for decisions are  

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) (iii) of the C.P. Act 1986 ?
2. Whether the Ops. were deficiency in service within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(g) read Sec-2(1)(0) of the C.P. Act 1986 ?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as sought for ?

 

Decisions with reason

 

1. Here the Complainant can not be regarded as consumer as envisaged by Sec-2(i)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1983 Ld. Lawyer for the Ops. submits that the complainant nor his husband can be said to be a consumer or a beneficiary.
2. The deceased Shib Prasad Ghosh had died because of electrocution was confirmed in the inquest as also the post mortem conducted following his death. It is also a fact that the cultivation was the only livelihood of the complainants. The complainant and her two children had to depend on the income of the deceased husband Shib Prasad Ghosh and the complainant and his borther in-law were in a joint messing.

Here the complainant files Xerox copy of documents like copy of quotation, Bank draft electric bill but all there are in the name of Sri Sankar Prasad Ghosh.

As the complainant and his husband are not the consumer under the consumer Protection Act, the question of deficiency in service does not arise.

The case was contested by Ops. by filing written objection challenging the maintainable of negligence on the part of the Ops.

3. In regard to the relief though Shib Prasad Ghosh died by electrocution. But the Ops. satate as the complainants is not regarded as a consumer within the definition of consumer Protection Act and the Ops. It was alleged by the complainant due to gross negligence and deficiency in service in failing in the statutory duty of the Ops. to properly maintain the

Contd………………..P/4

 

- ( 4 ) -

electrical connection and to keep the live wire in a secure condition that it had broken and fallen to the ground causing in the death of the complainant husband Shib Prasad Ghosh. Through the complainant and his husband are not the consumers. But it is a case due to sheer negligence on the part of the Op the husband of the complainant died.

              So, under the facts and circumstances of the case we think that for taking no due care towards safe keeping of maintenance of electricity line, the Op should be liable for deficiency of service and there by Sankar Prasad Ghosh will be merited for the remedy for the Op in the event of death of his brother Siba Prasad Ghosh.

                          Hence,

                                      Ordered,

                                                      that the case succeeds in part on contest against the Op. The complainant do get an award of Rs.60,000/-(Sixty thousand ) only payable by the Op.

               The award shall be paid by the Op.no.1 within 30 days from this date otherwise the total amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till recovery of the entire amount.

                 Contesting parties be supplied with copy of this judgment free of cost. 

                   

       Dic. by me.                                                                                            Corrected by

       

     Debi Sengupta     

         Member                                        Member                                                President

                                                                                                                        District Forum

                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur.