Smt. S. ALI, MEMBER

          The case of the petitioners in a nutshell is as follows:

          On 21/05/12 at about 7 A.M the petitioner‘s husband, SriKrishna Burman @ Krishna Burman was on the field in village Naichanpur Paikbar for his work, suddenly he came in contact with a High Tension live wire of W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd. which was bending from the HT Pole. The bending live wire was hanging for a long time due to the negligence of W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd. He was grievously injured, first and then he was taken to District Hospital Purba Medinipur at Tamluk, but due to his serious condition he was referred to S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata, for better treatment. For the above accidental injuries he died on the way. The petitioner no.1 stated that at the time of her husband’s death he (her husband) used to earn a sum of Rs. 11,000/- per month as carpenter, hence, the case for relief as sought for.

          The OP no.2 appeared in this case and filed his written version as well a Written notes of Argument, and contested the case and denied all material allegations made against them and stated that one Sri Ashok Mondal constructed a jheel  and was enjoying the energy at Rajnagar Baharjola under Bansberia 33/11 K.V. substation under Tamluk Division, for which some H.T poles have been bent down  and some technical staff visited the spot to straighten the poles and they did it. After few days it was again bent down, they informed the Officer-in-Charge Tamluk P.S. on 3/05/12 about the said matter. That only on 20/07/12 the OP’s learnt from the Petitioners’ Advocate’s letter that on 21/05/12 one SriKrishna Burman of Rajnagar Baharjola came in contact with 11KV conductor and got electrocuted, and that all responsibility lies in the hands of Ashok Mondal who was the owner of the Jheel, and the OP’s  have no negligence on their part.

          OP no. 1 and 3 did not appear in this case inspite of service of notice upon them.

POINTS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Are the petitioners entitled to relief or relief as prayed for?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

          Now both the points are taken up for consideration for the sake of convenience of discussions.

          The petitioner states that  after death of Sri Krishna Barman, postmortem was done on 22/05/12 P.M being no 347,wherein reason for death is stated as electrocution, diary  was lodged at Tamluk P.S being G. D.E no 1553 dated 22/05/12 and Tamluk P.S.U/D no 208/2012. The petitioner filed documents viz, Post-mortem Report, Death Certificate, Copy of G.D.E, and electric bills and Advocate’s letter addressed to the opposite parties. The petitioner/claimant adduced evidence. Another witness Bhiguram Barman also adduced evidence in support of the case of the petitioner.

          The OP no 2 while contesting the suit filed several documents in support of his contention, a letter dated 3/05/12 addressing to the OC Tamluk Purba Medinipur intimating them about the bending down of few HT poles of 11 KV at Rajnagar Baharjola under Bansberia, Tamluk Division. From the said letter it is clear that the OP’s were aware of the bending down of HT poles dangerously on 03.05.12 or prior to 03.05.12 which might cause accident at any moment to any person, but till 21^st may 2012 the OP’s did not take any step to straighten the poles in order to avoid any accident.  More so, the OP no.2 on 20/07/2012 lodged an FIR intimating the death of SriKrishna Barman wherein he mentioned that by a written information from Sri Sibaprasad Adhikari, Ld. Advocate, Tamluk, they came to know that one SriKrishna Barman was electrocuted on 21/05/2012, so it is clear further that had the OP’s been vigilant then they could have avoided such dangerous accident and death of SriKrishna Barman through the OPs come to know about the said bending of poles much earlier i.e. prior to such accident. Such inaction to straighten the poles on the part of the OPs squarely points out deficiency in service.

          There is no denial that the responsibility as to maintain the supply of electricity as well as the maintenance of the HT poles is also upon the board, the managers of supply have an added responsibility to take all precaution properly to maintain all transmitters, wires, poles which are the property of the board and no other person or body is responsible for its maintenance.

          As such from the above facts and the materials on record and the evidences on record we are of the view that the OP’s are jointly a severally negligent in performing their duties which caused the death of the husband of the petitioner and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, both the points are disposed of in favour of the petitioners.

          On going through the record it transpires that at the time of death, the age of the husband of complainant no. 1 was 43 years. It is claimed by the petitioner that the monthly income of her husband was Rs. 11000/- per month, but no document to support her statement is filed to substantiate her said claim regarding alleged income.

Now let us decide the quantum of compensation. On going through the materials on record and having regard to the contention as to the age of the deceased at the time of his death it reveals from the material on record that at the time of his death he was only 43 years old. So multiplier of 15 would be applicable for computation of compensation. It has already been discussed that no cogent material as also no reliable evidence has been produced or adduced on behalf of the complainant to show the deceased income as alleged. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and assuming the monthly income @ Rs.2000/- (i.e. annual monthly income Rs.24,000/-) and after applying a multiplier of 15, it comes to Rs.3,60,000/-. After deducting 1/3^rd from the said amount towards the expenses of the deceased, had he been alive, the amount comes to Rs. 2,40,000/-.  Apart from that, the complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Besides, the complainants are also entitled to get Rs. 1,000/- as cost.

 Both the issues are thus disposed of in favour of the complainants.

Hence, it is,

Ordered

that the instant complaint case be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP no.2 and exparte against the OP no. 1 and 3. The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay (1)  compensation Rs. 2,40,000/-, (2) loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- (3) Rs. 2,000/- towards funereal expenses (4) cost Rs. 1,000/-. Out of the Rs. 2,43,000/-, 2/5^th of the said amount (i.e. Rs.97,200/-) is to be kept in Fixed Deposit in a nationalized Bank in the name of 2 minor children (complainant no. 2 and 3) of the complainant no.1 towards their maintenance till they attain adulthood. However, complainant no.1 is entitled to withdraw monthly interest thereof for the upbringing of her children. The balance of Rs.1,45,800/- (out of total compensation of Rs.2,43,000/-) shall be paid equally by the OPs to the complainant no1, 4, 5 by separate cheques. Besides, by a separate cheque a sum of Rs.97,200/- shall be paid to the complainant no.1 towards compensation of her children (comp. no.2 and 3). That apart further a sum of Rs.5000/- as already stated above towards consortium shall be paid by the OPs to the complainant no. 1. The OPs are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with the law in which case, the OPs are liable to pay interest @ 7% over the total awarded amount of Rs.2,48,000/- from the date of filing of this case till full and final settlement. 

                               S.S. Ali                                                Dr. S. Dutta                                                 A.K. Bhattacharyya

                               Member                                               Member                                                      President