AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate for the appellants/complainants and Mr. Ajit Bhasme, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the respondents/opposite parties.
First Appeal No.40 of 2015 has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur dated 18.09.2014, passed in Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2005, whereby the complaint was partly allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the complainants on account of death of Purushottam Sitaram Dudhe within a period of 30 days and in case of default to pay interest @ 9% from the date of the complaint till realization. The opposite parties were also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10000/-. First Appeal No.1253 of 2014 has been filed by the appellants/complainants seeking enhancement of compensation.
The office has submitted report that FA/40/2015 is 9 days’ time barred. The appellant has filed IA/259/2015 for condoning delay. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing FA/40/2015 is condoned.
Ashabai is widow, Manoj is son, Km. Vaishali and Km. Deepali are daughters respectively of late Purushottam dudhe. Ashabai, Manoj, Km. Vaishali and Km. Deepali filed the complaint, CC/59/2005 for directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.50 lacs and litigation cost. The complainants stated that Purushottam Dudhe (the deceased) was original resident of village Akoli Jahagir, Taluka Akot, district Akola, where he had ancestral agricultural land i.e. F.S. No.16/2 at village Akoli Jahagir. The deceased dug a well in his field and installed an electric water pump in it. Electricity connection was in the name of his brother Devidas Sitaram Dudhe. The deceased was irrigating his field from this water pump and was paying electricity bills. Electricity pole in his field was last place of the line with a stay wire and insulator. In the morning of 24.05.2004, the deceased went to his field for irrigating his crops. He came into contact of stay wire, which was charged with electricity current. The deceased received fatal shock of electricity and died on the spot. When some villager went in that side, he could notice that the deceased was lying in the field. Then he informed the family members. Information of the incident was immediately given to the police station Akot and the office of Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Akot, who immediately disconnected the power supply. The police registered FIR, conducted inquest of dead body and sent it for post mortem. In post mortem report cause of death was found as “electrocution.” Electrical Inspector inspected the spot and submitted inspection report dated 09.06.2004 mentioning that there was six inch piece of copper wire of phase-3 line touching with metal frame and insulator was broken as such electricity current was passing in stay wire. At the time of death Purushottam Dudhe was 45 years old. His income by plying tractor purchased by him was Rs.25000/- per annum. Due to untimely death, the family has suffered with mental agony, loss of consortium and loss of income. The complainant gave legal notice for compensation but the opposite party did not respond. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants filed Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2005.
The opposite parties filed written reply and contested the complaint. Facts relating to the electricity connection and the death of Purushottam Dudhe have not been disputed. The opposite parties stated that they had erected the electric lines as per specifications under the law. During inspection it was found that three phase electric line was erected in village Rajura. One additional copper wire was illegally connected in the supply. Second end of the illegal wire was not connected anywhere and was in a hanging position. The additional hanging wire which was connected illegally touched the stay wire resulting in electrocution in the stay wire. Death of Purushottam Dudhe was either a suicide or culpable homicide. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The electricity connection was not in the name of the deceased. Therefore, the complainants are not consumers and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 18.09.2014 partly allowed the complaint with the direction as indicated hereinabove. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties filed First Appeal No.40 of 2015. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the complainants filed First Appeal No.1253 of 2014 for enhancement of compensation.
We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The fact that on 24.05.2004 Purushottam Dudhe died due to electric shock as he came in the contact of stay wire of the electric pole in his field, has not been disputed. In the post mortem report the cause of death is shown as cardiac respiratory arrest due to electric shock. So far as allegation of the opposite parties that the deceased committed suicide or it was a case of culpable homicide is concerned, the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to substantiate this plea and this is merely a bald allegation which cannot be accepted in absence of substantial evidence to that effect. The police registered the case and investigated the matter. The police submitted closer report after investigation and finding that the death was caused accidentally due to electric shock. In the inspection report dated 09.06.2004, Electricity Inspector found that one end of a copper wire of 6 inch was connected to 8 phase line and other end of the wire touched the stay wire and the stay wire got charged as insulter was broken due to which the victim got electrocuted and died on spot. It has not been the case of the opposite parties that the deceased or the complainants had connected the illegal wire, rather it is admitted case of the opposite parties that they had issued electricity connection in the name of brother of the deceased. In any case, it was duty of the opposite parties to change broken insulator in order to avoid such incident. This Commission in Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Parthu & Anr. 1 (2003) CPJ 159 (NC) observed that supplier of electricity is under the statutory obligation to maintain all of its line and equipments etc. in such condition so as to ensure that no one comes into direct contact of such line or equipments resulting into mishap. In the instant case, the victim sustained such a fatal electric shock that he died on spot. In the inspection report the stay wire insulator was found broken. Thus, the opposite parties have not properly maintained the stay wire. Had the opposite parties maintained the stay wire by proper insulation, the incident could have been avoided. The opposite parties have erected the electricity pole in the agricultural field of the deceased. They were duty bound to maintain the same in such a manner that no mishap occurs. Therefore, there was deficiency in service on the opposite parties and the State Commission was justified in partly allowing the complaint.
As far as question of maintainability of the complaint is concerned, brother of the deceased had filed an affidavit stating that the family property was shared by way of partition and the agricultural land was in the share of deceased Purushottam Dudhe. He had also filed the mutation record showing that Purushottam Dudhe was the absolute owner of the land in question. Though the electricity connection was in the name of Sitaram Devidas Dudhe, the brother of Purushottam Dudhe, he being the beneficiary of the electricity connection was the consumer of the opposite parties. Therefore, the State Commission rightly entertained the consumer complaint.
As far as compensation of Rs.10 lakhs awarded by the State Commission is concerned, the complainants have sought for enhancement of compensation from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.50. The complainants have filed papers to prove that the deceased had a tractor with trolley and by plying tractor and trolley, he had an annual income of Rs.25000/- but no proof of income has been filed. In absence of any income certificate, State Commission awarded lumpsum compensation. In paragraph 10 of the complaint, age of the deceased was given as 45 years at the time of death on 24.05.2004. In our view, the State Commission has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.10 lakhs in the absence of fixed income and the complainants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation.
ORDER
In view of the aforesaid discussions, both the appeals are dismissed.