A. K. Bhattacharyya
Complainant’s case, in brief, is that her husband Manoranjan Das died of electrocution on 03.08.2012 when he accidentally touched a cutting wire that was hanging from the electric post in front of his house. Complainant stated that her husband used to run a ‘Jori factory’ employing about 15/20 persons and his monthly income from the said business was Rs. 20,000/-. Such accidental death of complainant’s husband, who was the sole earning member of the family consisting of his parents, wife and two minor childrenvizTanmoy Das and Trilochan Das, has put the complainant and other family members in great difficulty. Holding OP solely responsible for the untimely death of her husband complainant filed the instant case for relief.
In support of her claim complainant filed photocopies of Investigation Report (Inquest Form), P.M. Report, Death Certificate, G.D. lodged with local P.S., lawyer’s notice etc.
OP, upon receipt of notice, appeared to contest the case by filing written version. They also filed w.n.a. and took a positive part in the hearing. By their w.v. OP denied inter alia any negligence on their part and holdthe irresponsible act of complainant’s husband behind his untimely and unfortunate death. OP claimed that the instant case is not maintainable as neither the complainant nor her deceased husband is/was a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. OP stated that although they received one lawyer’s notice, they have not received any official claim from the complainant herself. They also categorically state that there was/is no chance of existence of any such earth wire or its becoming electrified as stated from the electric P.C.C. Pole in the locality. Therefore, denying any negligence/laches on their part, OP prayed for dismissal of the case.
Points for consideration
- Whether complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP behind the death of complainant’s husband?
- Whether complainant is entitled to any relief for such accidental death of her husband?
Decisions with reasons
Point nos. 1, 2&3:
All these points are taken up collectively for the sake of brevity of discussion.
We have heard learned Counsels for both parties and have also gone through the evidence on record and considered the same to arrive at a decision.
It is claimed by the complainant that there are many electric consumers in the village under the OP and there is also electric connection in the house of the complainant though she has not filed copy of any electric bill to show as to whether her deceased husband was a consumer of OP or she herself is a consumer under the OP. In any case, insofar as the accident occurred at Kalidahi village under Nandakumar P.S. and the local Panchayatpays electricity charges to the OP for providing the facility of street lights and supply of energy thereto which is paid from the taxes paid by the villagers, being one of the beneficiaries, the complainant isor for that matter her deceased husband is/was very much a consumer and therefore, we do not find any irregularity in complainant’s action to seek remedy by invoking the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum as provided under the C.P.Act. Thus, the objection of OP as regards maintainability of the instant case is not tenable.
The fact that complainant’s husband died of electrocution is not in doubt insofar as the P.M. Report prepared by Medical Officer, District Hospital, Purba Medinipur clearly states that ‘cause of death in my opinion is due to cardiac shock by electrocution’. Further, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.PC, which was conducted following the death of the deceased,reached a finding on the basis of the statements of witnesses, that on 03-08-2012, the victim accidentally touched a wire that was hanging from the electric post in front of his house and got electrocuted and when he was rushed to Tamluk Hospital, he was declared brought dead. Therefore, we do not find any virtue in the contention of OP that there was/is no chance of existence of any such earth wire or its becoming electrified as stated from the electric P.C.C. Pole in the locality.
OP raised strong objection to the fact that complainant herself has not intimatedthe matter of occurrence of such accident to the OP till date and they also stated that the said accident is required to be investigated by the Electrical Inspector. However, admittedly they got due intimation about the said accident through the ld. lawyer of complainant vide letter dt. 31.12.2012. It is not clear, however, as to why they did not appoint any Electrical Inspector to investigate the matter after receiving intimation from the ld. lawyer of complainant as regards occurrence of said accident.
Being the distribution licensee, OP is solely responsible for ensuring proper maintenance of electric wire that runs from one pole to another to ensure that such installations are properly and securely maintained so that there are no safety hazards to consumers/publicand in case of any mishap arising out of said electric wire; OP cannot be absolved of its responsibility to compensate the victim. There is no doubt that had OP been quite vigilant about proper maintenance of electric wire, the accident would not have taken place and a precious life would not have lost. This clearly points out gross negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the OP for which, they are liable to compensate the complainant.
It is claimed by complainant that her husband used to run a ‘Jori factory’ where from he used to earn Rs. 20,000/- p.m. However, no cogent document has been placed on record by the complainant to support such income. In absence of any credible income proof certificate/document, we are constrained to assume his income at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. Taking into consideration a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- together with his age, future prospects etc. we are of the view that the loss to the family and estate would be Rs. 36,000/- p.a. and after applying a multiplier of 16, we calculate the total loss of income at Rs. 5,76,000/-. After deducting 1/3 from the said probable income towards the expenses of the deceased,we calculate the net loss to the complainant and her family at Rs. 3,84,000/- , which the complainant is entitled to get from the OP. Apart from that, the complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and cost Rs. 1,000/-.
All these points are, thus, disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that C.Case no. 12/2013 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. OP is directed to pay Rs. 3,84,000/- to the complainant as compensation. Out of this Rs. 3,84,000/- 2/3rd portion i.e. Rs. 2,56,000/- is to be kept in a nationalized bank in the names of two minor children of the complainant i.e. Tanmoy Das and Trilochan Das towards their maintenance till they become adult. However, complainant shall have the liberty to withdraw accrued interest thereof for the maintenance of her minor children. Besides, OP is also liable to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,000/- as cost within 45 days from the date of communication of this order i.d. complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law in which case, OP shall be liable to pay interest over the total awarded amount @ 9% p.a. from this day till full and final settlement.
S.S. Ali A.K. Bhattacharyya
Member President
