Ld Advocate for the parties are present. Judgement is ready, it is pronounced in open Commission in 4 pages 2 separate sheet of papers.

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the Complainant is  permanently residing under this Jurisdiction of this Commission. Both the complainants are simple, illiterate, innocent and peace loving citizens. Manik Das , son of the complainants died on 07.06.2019 in his home shed by sticking of electric shock and after that dead body post mortem was conducted in the Sub Divisional Hospital at Haldia, Purba Medinipur under the supervision of Police of Mahishadal P.S. Purba Medinipur. The electric meter was connected in the name of deceased Manik Das S/o.-Gourhari Das and Collector Code-90003907 and bearing Bt. No.-22239305 & with the Consumer ID No.-202287740.According to the complainant West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Consumer Ltd. has a provision for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) for the victim who died by the stuck of electric. So, the complainants submitted an application on 19.09.2019 for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five lakh only) for their deceased son Manik Das. An advocate letter was sent to the Electricity Department to know and to get compensation. After receiving the letter, the Permanent Accident Enquiry Committee of WBSEDCL sent a report on 29.02.2020 by post to  Parbati Das, vide Memo No- MZ/Accident/PA/20/699vi) dated 20.02.2020 & bearing Office Order No.-60 dated 20.02.2020. In the said letter of the PAEC of the Electricity Department, it was reported that the death of the victim was caused by sticking of electric beyond the energy meter, so there is no scope for the payment of compensation in favour of victims’ family. In the Post mortem report issued by the doctor, the cause of death has been revealed as electric shock as well as the charge sheet of Mahishadal P.S reflects same report before the Court of Ld. ACJM of Haldia, Purba Medinipur. The sudden and untimely death of their son the complainant suffered a bolt from the blue. The cause of action arises on and since 20/02/2020 and this case is filed within the limitation period of 2 (two) years. Under the above circumstances, the Complaints pray before the forum so that the Commission may be graciously pleased to direct the Opponent parties. To pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh only)  as their demand to the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for mental harassment and to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the Complainants for conducting of this case.

Notices have been duly served upon the ops. The ops have resisted the claim of the complainant by filing written version thereto. It is stated in the written version inter alia that the statements of the complaint which are not specifically denied shall not be deemed to be admission of this opposite party. The prayers of the Complainant as stated are false, frivolous, baseless, and illegal ; as such the Complainants are not entitled to have the reliefs as prayed for. The deceased Manik Das who happens to be the son of the complainants and was a consumer of WBSEDCL under Mahishadal CCC having Con Id — 202287740. On 25.07.2019 a court complaint bearing MP No -405/19 about the above matter i.e. death of Manik Das was started vide PS Case No 239/19. While undertaking investigation by police personnel of Mahishadal PS a letter was received from Mahishadal PS dated 14.09.19 where for the purpose of investigation and for ascertaining the cause of death they sought for technical clarification from the office of Mahishadal CCC. The reason why Mahishadal PS police personnel sought for clarification was because in the Post Mortem report it was mentioned that electrocution might have been a cause of death and that too on the basis of circumstantial evidence which can be confirmed only after undertaking of viscera report, and the death occurred on 07.06.2019 as per available report. Based on the application of Mahishadal PS opposite party visited the spot, inspected the matter in detail and also took written statement of Parbati Das. On preliminary inspection it could be understood that the place where Manik Das’s body was found was inside the house premises and the meter was installed at the corridor of the house. At the said location through the last PCC Pole the electric service was drawn and the meter was easily accessible and clearly visible. During the time of inspection no snapping/cut mark on the wire and service cable was noticed. The internal house wiring after WBSEDCL’s installed meter was found to be done temporarily through Pipe. The room in which he was found lying dead it was observed that one wire from the plug point of switch board was drawn and the insulation was removed for which if the switch board power is turned on then if Manik Das came in contact with the live portion of wire then electrocution may happen, but since the metering installation was found to be in order and the said incident occurred beyond metering installation so WBSEDCL is not liable for the same. In the Post Mortem report it was clearly mentioned that after ascertaining of viscera report whether electrocution is the cause of death or not that can be ascertained and that too on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Based on the above fact findings an enquiry committee was constituted from the Office of the Regional Manager, Purba Medinipur, WBSEDCL for ascertaining the cause of accident. On the basis of the said committee’s observation , Zonal Manager, Midnapore Zone, WBSEDCL vide Memo No: MZ/Accident/PA/20/69 dated 20.02.2020 bearing Office Order No : 60 it was concluded that since he was found to be lying on the floor inside his house with electric wire fastened on his body it proves an unsafe act on the part of the victim, and also beyond the energy meter, so there is no scope for the payment of compensation in favour of the victim’s family and the same was informed to the applicants by letter. This Opposite Party states that the Complainant has no cause of action to institute the instant case against this Opposite Party. The claim of Complainant in this case is totally false, frivolous, baseless, incorrect, and unwarranted in law and as such the Complainant is not entitled to have the relief as prayed for. According to ops the case is liable to be dismissed.

Points for determination are:                                                           

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?    

2. Are the Complainants entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused and assessed the affidavit of the complainant, written version filed by op, evidence of both parties and other documents. We have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by the Ld counsel of rival parties.

The ops admitted that the deceased Manik Das who happens to be the son of the complainants and he was a consumer of WBSEDCL under Mahishadal CCC having Con Id — 202287740.From the bundle of facts it is evident that the complainants are consumers. The case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

On careful evaluation of the evidence of the complainants,  it appears that , the have not specifically averred as to how the service connection provided by the ops was responsible for the alleged accident or as to how they caused the negligent acts on their part. It has not been asserted as to what fault was with their service connection for causing the electrocution of the deceased. Rather, it appears that initially the complainants lodged the FIR alleging murder of their son arising out of altercation at the time of burning of playing cards from fire of burnt biri against some FIR named persons. During investigation, the facts as alleged were not established. It could not established during investigation that the death was caused by accidence due to negligent acts on the part of the ops. As a result, investigating officer submitted Final report as Mistake of fact vide Mahishadal PS FRMF NO 375/19dated 30.12.2019.u/s 302 IPC. It is also evident that based on the application of Mahishadal PS, opposite party visited the spot, inspected the matter in detail and also took written statement of Parbati Das. On preliminary inspection it could be understood that the place where Manik Das’s body was found was inside the house premises and the meter was installed at the corridor of the house. At the said location through the last PCC Pole the electric service was drawn and the meter was easily accessible and clearly visible. During the time of inspection no snapping/cut mark on the wire and service cable was noticed. The internal house wiring after WBSEDCL’s installed meter was found to be done temporarily through Pipe. The room in which he was found lying dead it was observed that one wire from the plug point of switch board was drawn and the insulation was removed for which if the switch board power is turned on then if Manik Das came in contact with the live portion of wire then electrocution may happen, but since the metering installation was found to be in order and the said incident occurred beyond metering installation. The complainant has not furnished the Inquest Report to get the first hand apprehension as to whether there are any doubt about the inspection done by the technical experts of the ops. Police did not collect viscera report to come to a conclusion about the actual cause of death. From the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it appears that there is no iota of proof that the accident was caused to the consumer due to the negligence acts or omission of the service provider, the ops. The complainants have failed to bring home the elements of deficiency of service against the ops.

Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Thus, the case does not succeed.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/232 of 2020 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the ops. No order as to costs is passed.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the parties free of cost.