PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties heard. Previously UHBVNL through its Sub Divisional Officer and Others had filed Revision Petition No. 372 of 2013, which was dismissed vide our order dated 04.04.2013. 2. Now the legal heirs of the Late Shri Subhash, the complainants have filed the instant Revision Petition. The facts of this case are these. On 5.8.2010, Subhash, Krishna and Surender were uprooting the grass from the paddy crop due to which, Surender and Subhash suffered the electric current and died on the spot. A report was lodged with the police. The above said complainants submitted claim before the Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.,in short, UHBVNL, but they rejected their claim. 3. The complaints were filed before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaints and came to the conclusion that the deceased persons were not the consumers. Aggrieved by that order, the complainants filed appeals before the State Commission, which allowed the complaints and granted compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each for death of both deceased alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. 4. The legal heirs of the deceased Shri Subhash have now filed the present revision petitions in this Commission. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer (OP) , S/Divn. UHBVNL, Naguran, its relevant portion runs as follows:- “So, as per above the F.A. could be avoided, if the deceased informed to the Nigam staff regarding broken wire of LT line accordingly and also not try to himself connect the wire without observing safety rule. It is concluded due to negligence of the deceased the above F.A. was occurred. No any official/officers are found responsible for his accident directly or indirectly.” 5. The police also came to the conclusion that this was a case of accident simplicitor. The complaint also mentions: “…. But, the Police did not register any case against the Opposite Parties for causing death due to negligent act and reported this incident as accident without any fault or negligence of anybody. This report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. conducted by the Police clearly established that both the deceased had died due to electric shock suffered by them on account of falling of live electric wire in the water of paddy where both of them were working.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that as a matter of fact three persons were working. Two had died and one is alive, who did not have any injury. Counsel for the respondents further explains that the deceased persons instead of taking precautions fiddled with the wires and due to their own negligence, they expired. Counsel for the respondents submits that they have already been paid Rs. 1,50,000/- plus Rs. 10,000/- as ordered by this Commission dated 04.04.2013. LRs of Shri Surinder had also filed the revision petition which was dismissed as withdrawn. 7. All these arguments lack conviction. The report of SDO (OP) clearly goes to show that he has tried to save his own skin. He has tried in vain to pass the buck on the deceased. His version and version in the complaint are contradictory. It is difficult to fathom why the wire was lying in the crops itself. This clearly goes to show the negligence, inaction and passivity o part of the opposite parties. They have left the wires unattended on the field. It clearly goes to show the respondents were deficient in not providing the electricity properly. The electricity department should have provided the protection and should had taken precautions. 8. Now we turn to the question of compensation. The compensation granted by the State Commission appears to be on the lower side. This must be mentioned here that this petition is filed by the legal heirs of Subhash namely; Sudesh W/o Late Subhash, Sushil, aged 5 years D/o Late Subhash, Mohit aged 3 years S/o Late Subhash, Maya Devi @ Bimla, mother of Late Subhash and Khazan Singh father of Late Subhash. 8. It is also mentioned that Subhash was about 28 years old. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs. 9,18,000/- should be granted on the basis of the earning of the deceased @ Rs. 6,000/- per month. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have not submitted the proof of age of the deceased and the case requires investigation and evidence by the Civil Court. They have also not filed the proof of income. 9. There can be no denial that Subhash was a well-bodied person. 10. Keeping in view, all the facts and circumstances, we hareby enhance the compensation from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 7,50,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of death after deduction of the amount which has already been paid. Rs. 50,000/- is granted towards litigation charges, for harassment and mental agony. The respondents are directed to pay the said amount within 90 days otherwise it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till realization. 11. The Revision Petition stands disposed of. | 
