Haryana

StateCommission

A/1489/2017

BANITA AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SINGAL

25 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1489 of  2017

Date of the Institution: 07.12.2017

Date of Decision: 15.01.2019

 

1.      Banita w/o Sh. Late Rajpal s/o Sh. Late Bije Singh,

2.      Laxmi w/o Sh. Late Bije Singh

3.      Himani, aged 4 years, D/o Sh. Late Rajpal.

4.      Krish, aged 2 ½ years s/o Sh. Late Rajpal, both minors through their mother Smt. Banita being their natural guardian and next friend, all above residents of village Ajaib, Tehsil Meham, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana.

                                                                   .….Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVNL) through its Managing Director, Vidyut Sadan, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.      CE (OP) UHBVNL, Rajiv Gandhi Vidyut Sadan Bhawan, Model town, Rohtak, Haryana.

3.      XEN Sub  Urban Division No.1, UHBVNL, Model Town, Rohtak, Haryana.

4.      SDO OP Sub Division, UHBVNL Meham, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana.

…..Respondents

 

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

                   Mrs.Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Sandeep Singhal, Advocate for the appellant.

                    None for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The brief facts of the case are that        husband (deceased) of complainant No.1 was working as a truck driver under the Super Zamindar Transport Company at Rohtak.  The husband of the complainant No.1 alongwith Rajnath loaded the truck with the steel pipes and they had to reach at Gorakhpur for unloading the pipes. The deceased Rajpal belongs to village Ajaib Tehsil Meham Distt. Rohtak and he wanted to get rest in his village and when he reached on the village Phirni at about 11.50 p.m.  On 03.03.2016 midnight the 1000 voltage HT conductor was hanging below and standard height i.e. at the height of hardly 10 to 11 fts., the husband of the complainant No.1 got electric shock after touching the body of truck with the lower conductor and died at spot.  Raj Nath escaped and who injured by grevious hurt. Sh. Samunder immediately gave the information of the said accident to complaint-incharge of village Ajaib, Sh.Balkishan L.M. who reached the site of the accident.  The complaint was lodged in the complaint register telephonically.  The complainants requested the opposite party to pay compensation, but, to no avail.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      O.Ps. controverted their averments and alleged that   11000 voltage HT conductor was not hanging below the standard height.  The truck was overloaded so much with iron pipe.  An eagle (Baj) shaped kalakariti was also attached upon the head of the truck which was stroked with the electric pole and become reason of the accident.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak allowed the complaint  vide impugned order dated 13.11.2017 and directed the Ops to pay Rs.9,36,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 25.03.2016 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants maximum within one month from the date of decision.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the complainants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 

5.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.Sandeep Singhal, the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh.Sant Kumar LDC representative of the respondents, the learned counsel for the respondents. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      As a matter of fact, the basic and foremost question  which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present appellants-complainants are entitled for more compensation?

7.      Learned counsel for the complainants-appellants vehemently argued that husband of the complainant was expired due to deficiency and negligence on the part of the O.ps. as wire of HT line was below.  As per the standard norms, the height of HT line was  9 meters, but the lower conductor touched the upper portion of the truck as height of the lower conductor was hardly 10 to 11 fts and the height of truck was 11.4.  The husband of the complainant had died in the fatal accident due to electrocution and the accident has occurred due to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  He has placed his reliance upon a celebrated authority  titled Paramjit Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and others 2008 (4) RC R (Civil) 772 and  Smt. Sarla Verms and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr.  2009 AIR (SC) 3104.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that 11000 voltage HT conductor was not hanging below the standard height.  The tuck was overloaded.  The iron shaped eagle attached upon the head of the truck which was stroked with the electricity pole and it become reason of the accident.   The complainant was not entitled for compensation.

9.      As per Ex.C-21, the date of birth of deceased was 02.04.1970 and he was 46 years old at the time of his death.  As per the DC rate of District Rohtak at the relevant point of time, the salary of driver  who was skilled labour of HT vehicle is assessed Rs.10,400/- per month and while assessing only income of the deceased Rs. 1,24,800/- per annum, 1/4^th was deducted on account of his own expenses and dependency, it would be Rs.93,600/- per annum. As per MACT cases multiplier of 13 is applicable if the age of deceased is 45-50 years and by multiplying the dependency with 13.   Only 25% increase in per years as a future perspective, so 25% of Rs.93,600/- is Rs.23,400/-, so the income including the future prospects is Rs.23,400+93,600/-=1,17,000/-, therefore by multiplying the dependency with 13 the amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,17,000 x 13= 15,26,200/- and  they are also entitled for conventional heads like loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- total Rs.70,000/-.  The Total amount would be Rs.15,26,200+70,000=15,96,200/-.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for Rs.15,96,200/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint till realisation.  Since the complainant has received Rs.9,36,000/- from the opposite parties. So, the complainant is entitled for Rs.15,96,200/- - 9,36,000/-=6,60,200/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization.  The remaining amount would be recoverable from the opposite parties.  With this modification, the appeal stands disposed off.

 

January 15th, 2019     Manjula                Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                          Addl.Bench                    Addl.Bench                 

S.K.