AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
The above revision has been filed against the Order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 16.01.2023 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the Order of the District Forum dated 19.01.2021 passed in CC No. 04 of 2018 has been upheld.
Respondents No. 1 to 6 filed CC No.04 of 2018 for directing the petitioners to give compensation of Rs. 12,24,000/- towards monetary loss, Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards mental pain and agony with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 02.01.2017 till the date of payment.
In the complaint in substance it has been stated that deceased Lalit Kumar Kashyap was residing in village Munund, PS & Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh). There was an electricity connection in his house in the name of his sister-in-law (bhabhi) namely Ramkumari Kashyap. On 02.01.2017 the electricity wire fell on the ground due to lack of proper maintenance, repair and supervision. Around 10 to 10.15 hrs. deceased Lalit Kumar Kashyap came in contact with the electric wire and he suddenly got electrocuted. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared as dead. Due to negligence of the petitioners in not properly maintaining, repairing and supervising the electricity supply the accident has occurred and, therefore, they are liable to pay compensation.
The petitioner filed their written reply and contested the matter in which they have denied the breaking up of the electricity wire on 02.01.2017 due to lack of proper maintenance and repair. They have stated that complainants have not made any complaint regarding the maintenance of the wire. There was no connection of the electricity in the name of the complainants or in the name of the deceased and, therefore, they are not consumers. They denied that Lalit Kumar Kashyap used to earn Rs.70,000/- yearly and stated that the claim of compensation was exaggerated.
The District Commission after hearing the parties by the Order dated 19.01.2021 found that death of Lalit Kumar Kashyap on 02.01.2017 due to breaking up of running electricity wire electrocution has taken place and the opposite party is liable to pay compensation. The income of the deceased has been assessed to Rs.4500/- per month and by applying the multiplier of 17 the loss has been assessed. On this finding the District Commission has directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.9,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of incident, Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.3,000/- for litigation cost.
The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in the appeal which has been dismissed by the State Commission by the impugned Order.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that Electricity Act, 2003 provides a proper procedure for claiming compensation but the respondents have not made any complaint for compensation under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. The respondent has given information on 04.01.2017 regarding the death of Lalit Kumar Kashyap. On this information the enquiry was conducted by the competent authority but the report is still awaited. Deceased Lalit Kumar Kashyap did not have connection in his name and, therefore, he cannot be treated as consumer.
We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. So far as Electricity Act 2003 concerned it does not bar the jurisdiction of consumer forum which is exercising the additional jurisdiction of Civil Court. Therefore, if any provision has been provided under it it does not affect the jurisdiction of consumer fora in proceeding in the matter. The consumer fora after considering the entire evidence on the record found that death of Lalit Kumar Kashyap had taken place due to electrocution from broken service wire of the electricity. This finding of fact does not suffer from any illegality. There is concurrent findings of fora below. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by fora below. The revision has no merits. It is dismissed.