Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 571.
Instituted on : 29.09.2017.
Decided on : 25.03.2019.
Sajjan Singh, age 65 year, son of Sh. Balbir Singh, Resident of Village Bhagwatipur, Tehsil and District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Executive Engineer, City (OP) Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVNL), Rohtak.
2. X.En, City Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Karun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjay Hooda, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties have provided 33000 KV electric power line in the village of the complainant and all the responsibilities is upon the opposite parties to maintain the same to avoid any mishap in the village. It is alleged that on 16.06.2017 the said electric power line had fallen down in the field of the son of the complainant, and a verbal complaint to this effect was made to the respondents, but the respondents did nothing to maintain the said fallen electric power line which was having current therein. That on 24.06.2017, when the wife of the complainant named Vidyawati had come to worship in field No. 58/9,10, then she was caught under high power electric wire which was lying unattended and in necked condition. That the wife of the complainant suffered electric current and had died due to sheer negligence, irresponsible act and conduct of respondents as the electric wire was not probably maintained by the respondents. That intimation was given to Lakhan Majra police station as well as to the official of respondents and FIR No. 150 dated 24.06.2017 was registered and postmortem was conducted by the concerned Medical Officer, General Hospital, Rohtak. That the complainant visited to the respondents and made representation with a demand to pay compensation on account of death of his wife, respondents admitted their liability to pay the compensation on account of death of wife of the complainant and given in writing also on dated 24.06.2017, but till date not paid the proper compensation to the complainant. That there is a great deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith interest as compensation and litigation expenses as explained in the relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their written reply has submitted that it is incorrect that the verbal complaint was made to the respondent and the official of the respondent did nothing to maintain the said fallen electric power line. Some poles of 33KV lines were tilted on 16.06.2017 due to continuous rain and wind storm for three days i.e. 15.06.2017 to 17.06.2017 and the same were got set right by 33KV line staff and line got hold OK after completion of work. It is incorrect that the Vidyawati has died due to sheer negligence of respondents as the electric wire was not properly maintained by the respondents. 33 KV pole became tilted and came down on earth in the night of 23,24,/06/2017 due to water remained filled in the fields since 15.06.2017 and the sand in the field became soft as like mire upto depth. 33KV line at this spot is straight, pole may be fallen down due to natural climate as like air pressure in rain. Neither phase wires touched with each other phases and ground nor pole broken and 33 KV line remained on and charge and did not trip. It is further submitted that the respondents paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- bearing cheque No. 432356 dated 15.09.2017, as full and final payment through Commissioner Employees Compensation Act, Rohtak. It is, therefore, prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the opposite parties.
3. Complainant has also filed replication to the written statement filed by the opposite parties and submitted that it is wrong that some poles of 33KV lines were tiled on 16.06.2017 due to continuous rain and wind storm for three days i.e. 15.06.2017 to 17.06.2017 or the same were got set right by 33KV staff or line got hold OK as alleged. It is wrong that pole may be fallen down due to natural climate as alleged. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant may kindly be allowed.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed his evidence on dated 14.08.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R5 and closed his evidence on dated 05.02.2019.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per copy of FIR Ex.C2 and as per copy of PMR ExC5, the cause of death of Vidyawati is electrocution. As per copy of complaint Ex.C3 also, the cause of death is electrocution cause due to felling of electricity pole in the field of complainant. It is also observed that as per writing given on Ex.C6, opposite party has admitted the felling of 33KV line pole and has also admitted its liability to pay the compensation. However, as per opposite parties, they had already paid an amount of Rs.120000/- bearing cheque no.43235 dated 15.09.2017 as full and final payment to the complainant as per law and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that in view of the documents placed on record by both the parties it is proved that Smt. Vidyawati had died due to electrocution. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2010) CPJ 198(NC) titled DHBVNL Vs.Vidhya Devi whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has observed that “Petitioner transmits energy, has duty to ensure safety and security of persons, animals and other objects-Loose, exposed wire causes damages-Petitioner held liable to compensate losses”. We have also placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid-down in First Appeal No.1489 of 2017 decided on 15.01.2019 by Hon’ble Judicial Member Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary in case titled as Banita Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., whereby Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has disposed of the appeal filed by the complainant and has enhanced the amount of compensation. as per II(2013)CPJ 321(NC) titled Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Parmila Devi & Ors. Hon’be National Commission has held that: “Accidental Death-Improper insulation of live wire-Appellant-Nigam are responsible since they are required to ensure that such installations are properly and securely maintained so that there are no safety hazards to consumers/public”. On the quantum, the reliance has been placed on the Paramjit Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and others 2008(4)RCR 772(DB) (P & H) wherein Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that in case of death of a person due to electrocution and negligence of electricity board damages are to be assessed on the basis of principles of Motor Vehicle Act.
7. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation on the basis of principles of Motor Vehicle Act, which is assessed as under:-
As per copy of Voter Card Ex.C8, Smt. Vidyawati was 41 years on 1.1.1994 and at the time of her death, she was 64 years old. The deceased Vidyawati was a household lady and the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8100/- per month. Therefore while assessing only income of the deceased Rs.8100/- per month, 1/3th is deducted on account of her own expenses and the dependency comes as Rs.5400/- per annum i.e.64800/- per annum. As per MACT cases multiplier of 8 is applicable if the age of deceased is 60-70 years. Therefore, by multiplying the dependency with 8, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.518400/-(Rs.64800 x 8). Complainant is also entitled for loss of estate Rs.15000/-, loss of consortium Rs.40000/- and funeral expenses Rs.15000/- total Rs.70000/-. The total amount would be Rs.518400/- + Rs.70000=588400/-. The respondent has already paid an amount of Rs.120000/- to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.468400/-(Rs.588400-120000/-).
8 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that the opposite parties shall pay a sum of 468400/- (Rupees Four lac sixty eight thousand four hundred only) to the complainants alongwith interest@ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 29.09.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
