AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Sree Narain Jha, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. R.K.Rathore for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
This revision has been filed against the order of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh dated 18.09.2013 passed in First Appeal No.1136 of 2012 (arising out of the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur, dated 11.07.2012 passed in CC No. 532 of 2011) whereby the complaint has been allowed for compensation of Rs.500000/-. Out of which, it has been held that Kavita Rani, (complainant -3) would be entitled to 50% and remaining amount would be divided equally among other complainants. State Commission while dismissing the appeal of respondents-1 and 2 has held that Om Prakash (complainant-1) had no share in the compensation, but inadvertently directed for dividing the compensation among Complainant-2,4,5 & 6 in equal share. Thereby inadvertently the share of the petitioner has been deleted.
The office has reported 2869 days delay in filing the revision. The petitioner has filed IA/8197/2021 for condoning the delay. It has been stated in the application for condonation of delay that State Commission by the impugned order dated 18.09.2013 inadvertently deleted share of the petitioner in the compensation. District Forum, vide order dated 06.01.2014, directed to deposit Rs.237500/- in “Fixed Deposit” for a period of five years in the name of the petitioner, which was actually deposited on 25.01.2014. When the “Fixed Deposit” was matured, the petitioner moved MA/6/2019 for withdrawal of the amount in “Fixed Deposit” together with benefit accrued on it. When the application came up for hearing before District Forum on 01.10.2020, then it was pointed out that under the order of State Commission dated 18.09.2013 share of the petitioner has been deleted, therefore, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to release the amount to the petitioner. Then the petitioner got the application dismissed as withdrawn on 01.10.2020 with liberty to file appropriate application before State Commission. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before State Commission (registered as MA /2151/2020) for correction of the order dated 18.09.2013 passed in First Appeal No.1136 of 2012, which was dismissed by order dated 08.02.2021 on the ground that State Commission has no power for review/correction. Due to pandemic and lock down in the country, the petitioner took some time for collecting the papers and revision was filed on 25.10.2021. Prior to 01.10.2020, the petitioner could not know that her share had been deleted by State Commission as there was no dispute in respect of her share before State Commission. The delay is liable to be condoned. The opposite parties did not file any counter-affidavit/reply to the delay condonation application. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the revision is condoned.
Om Prakash, (complainant -1), Rajjo (complainant-2), Kavita Rani, (complainant-3), Khushi (complainant-4), Deepka (complainant -5), Vabhav Kumar (complainant-6) filed CC/532/2011 claiming compensation from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another (respondents-1 and 2) for the death of Mandeep Kumar (husband of the petitioner) due to electric shock. It has been stated that the complainants had domestic electricity connection in their house from the power supply of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. On 14.04.2011 at 6:30 am, one wire of 11 K.V. line was fallen down near the transformer. A complaint was made in this respect then the employees Punjab State Power Corporation Limited came and corrected the fallen wire. Thereafter, when the power supply was started on 14.04.2011 at 9:00 am all of sudden high voltage was surged in the area. At that time Mandeep Kumar (husband of the petitioner) was putting his mobile charger in the plug at his house and due to electrocution he died on the spot. Due to surge of high voltage, the transformer was also burnt. FIR of the incident was lodged on 14.04.2011 vide FIR No.22. The police thereafter started investigation and sent the dead body of Mandeep Kumar for post-mortem. Post-mortem was done on 15.04.2011 and ‘cause of death’ was mentioned as electric shock. The complainants approached Sub-Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, for compensation but nothing was done, then this complaint was filed.
The opposite parties filed their written statement and took plea that Mandeep Kumar died when he was changing battery of his invertor. They totally denied surge of electricity voltage on 14.04.2011 at 9:00 am and burning of the transformer.
Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. From the documentary evidence adduced by the complainant, it was proved that the transformer of the locality where the house of Mandeep Kumar situated was burnt on 14.04.2011 at 9:00 am and it was changed. From the post-mortem report, cause of death of Mandeep Kumar as electric shock was proved. Therefore, relying upon the Affidavits of Evidence filed by the complainants, the District Forum by this judgment dated 11.07.2012 held that the case of the complainants of sudden surge in electricity voltage on 14.04.2011 at 9:00 am and Mandeep Kumar came in the grip of high voltage while inserting mobile charger it the plug at his house, at that time, were proved. It was held that the opposite parties were negligent for not proper maintenance of transformer and electricity wire as well as supply of power. Income of Mandeep Kumar was treated as income of a workman of Rs.150/- per day. Out of which, Rs.50/- was deducted towards his personal expenses and annual loss of income was taken as Rs.36000/-. On the age of Mandeep Kumar, multiplier of 17 was applied, but lump sum compensation of Rs.500000/- was given. It has been further held that Kavita Rani (complainant-3) widow of Mandeep Kumar had responsibility of nourishing her minor children, complainants-4,5 & 6, therefore, she would be entitled to 50% of the compensation and remaining amount will be divided equally amongst other complainants. As the children were minor, as such, 50% of the amount was directed to be deposited in “Fixed Deposit” in nationalised bank for a period of five years.
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another (opposite parties) filed First Appeal No.1136 of 2018 before State Commission. The State Commission by judgment dated 18.09.2013 upheld the findings of District Forum that the opposite parties were negligent for not properly maintaining the transformer and other equipment relating to power supply and amount of compensation as awarded by District Forum. However, State Commission held that Om Prakash (father of the deceased) was not an heir of deceased under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as such he was not entitled for any share in the compensation. But the State Commission has inadvertently observed that the compensation to be divided equally amongst opposite parties-2, 4, 5 & 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by this inadvertent error committed by the State Commission and filed the present revision.
We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties. There was no dispute either before the District Forum or before State Commission that Kavita Rani (the petitioner) was widow of Mandeep Kumar and guardian of her children, Khushi (minor), Deepka (minor) and Vabhav Kumar (minor). In view of the fact Kavita Rani was guardian of Khusi, Deepka and Vabhav Kumar and these children were minor, the District Forum found Kavita Rani had responsibility for nourishment of her minor children. Therefore, the District Forum had directed for giving half of the compensation to Kavita Rani (the petitioner) and directed that this amount be deposited in “Fixed Deposit” in a Nationalised bank for a period of five years. Statutory deposit of Rs.25000/- in the appeal before State Commission, was distributed equally amongst all the complainants under the order of the State Commission. 50% of the remaining amount i.e. Rs.237500/- was deposited in fixed deposit for a period of five years under the order of District Forum dated 06.01.2014. There was no dispute in respect of share and status of the petitioner as guardian of her minor children in appeal. Order of District Forum so far it has directed for giving 50% of the compensation to the petitioner remained unchallenged nor it has been set aside by the State Commission. Inadvertently entire share of Kavita Rani (the petitioner) has been deleted due to typographical error, which is liable to be corrected.
ORDER
In the result, this revision is allowed. Order of State Commission dated 18.09.2013 passed in First Appeal No.1136 of 2012 is modified and it is held that Kavita Rani, the petitioner would be entitled for 50% of the compensation as directed by District Forum in the order dated 11.07.2012 passed in CC No.532 of 2011.