ASLEEN KAUR vs PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2013 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ("the State Commission") in First Appeal no. 1187 of 2009.

The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that Smt Sumeet Kaur, alias Shelly, daughter of Jaswinder Singh was married with Surpreet Singh and then a daughter was born to them, i.e., the petitioner, Asleen Kaur. Unfortunately, Surpreet Singh died on 02.11.2006 due to heart attack. Thereafter, Sumeet Kaur, along with her minor child, started living with her father, Jaswinder Singh at 501, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar. The respondents/ opposite parties had installed an electric connection bearing account No. C 43 SW 100140F in the said premises. On 13.08.2008, due to heavy rain, the rain water entered the houses of locality of East Mohan Nagar which included her house and all the family members went to the roof of the house. Jaswinder Singh, along with Rajinder Singh son of Dheeraj Singh Bali and one Jaswinder Singh resident of 474, East Mohan Nagar approached the respondents and requested them to switch off the supply of electricity to the said area immediately but the respondents did not listen to their request and continued the electric supply to the said area. When Sumeet Kaur, came down from the room to the kitchen in order to prepare tea for the family, she died at the spot due to electrocution in the kitchen. The news about this incident was published in various newspapers. Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, gave a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- as financial assistance to the petitioner at the time of Bhog Ceremony of deceased, Smt Sumeet Kaur, which was issued in the name of the petitioner, Asleen Kaur.

It was further averred that Sumeet Kaur, the deceased was a final year student of BDS at Sri Guru Ram Das Institute, Amritsar and had taken a study loan of Rs.7,50,000/- from Bank of Baroda. She had paid total fee of Rs.14,40,000/- to the said institute. The petitioner was fully dependent upon her deceased mother and now her future has been ruined. The deceased after completing her study was likely to have earned Rs.50,000/- per month. Thus, the petitioner also suffered a future financial loss permanently. She also suffered mental pain and agony due to the death of her mother in the incident. Alleging carelessness and negligence on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum through her maternal grandfather, Jaswinder Singh, seeking directions to the respondents to pay her compensation to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/-, besides litigation expenses.

Upon notice, the respondents/ opposite parties filed written reply taking preliminary objection that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and only the civil court has got the requisite jurisdiction. The allegations of carelessness and negligence were denied and it was stated that no complaint, whatsoever, was ever lodged with them by any person, either from the family of the petitioner or from the locality that the electric supply to the area be disconnected. They came to know about the said incident only from the present complaint and they were not liable to make any payment to the petitioner. If there was any leakage of electricity in the house, the family members should have first switched off the electricity meter. Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner as a financial assistance out of sympathy. The cause of electrocution has not been given anywhere in the complaint. The accident could have occurred due to any defect in the internal wiring of the house or the deceased might have touched a naked electric wire. Since all other family members are safe and there was no complaint from any other members or the neighbours, the death of the mother of the complainant cannot be attributed to negligence on the part of the respondents. The opposite party hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (''the District Forum'') vide their order dated 16.07.2009 while allowing the complaint observed as under: "Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved by the complainant. The complaint as such is hereby allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.9,60,000/- as compensation in favour of the minor complainant. This amount shall be kept in fixed deposit till the minor attains majority. However, her guardian shall withdraw quarterly interest accrued on the FDR till the minor attains majority. The guardian further shall be held entitled to approach the court for the withdrawal of higher amount if required for the higher education of the minor complainant."

Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order of the District Form, both the petitioner/ complainant as also the respondents/ opposite parties filed appeals before the State Commission. In the appeal filed by the respondent/ opposite party, in appeal no. 1187 of 2009 it was prayed that the order of the District Forum should be set aside whereas the petitioner in her appeal no. 1124 of 2009 made a prayer for enhancement of the compensation.

The State Commission after thoroughly going through the pleadings of the parties and perused the evidence on record as also the submissions made by the learned counsel while allowing the appeal no. 1187 of 2009 of the opposite party has set aside the order of the District Forum and held as under: " The only admitted fact in the present case is that Sumeet Kaur W/o late Surpreet Singh, mother of the complainant, died on 13.08.2008. This fact is proved from the death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. The complainant has alleged that the deceased died due to the electric leakage current after the flood water entered the house of the father of the deceased i.e. 501, East Mohan Nagar, Sultanwind, Amritsar. It has been contended that on 13.08.2008, Smt Sumeet Kaur was electrocuted when she went to the kitchen to make tea for the family members. Even though her death is not disputed but no cause of death has been established. No FIR was lodged. No post-mortem was got conducted to confirm the cause of death. Distribution of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar to the complainant as compensation cannot be taken as a proof of cause of death. The letter of SDM Amritsar, vide which this amount was disbursed, only states that deceased died due to electric current. There is nothing on record to show how SDM Amritsar or Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar reached the conclusion that the deceased died due to electrocution when no inquiry was conducted to inquire into the cause of her death. The complainant has relied upon the newspaper reports in which it was reported that Sumeet Kaur alias Shelly, a BDS student, was electrocuted after water inundated her house in East Mohan Nagar. The reports of the correspondents of newspapers, which are primarily based on hearsay, have no evidentiary value. Moreover no newspaper correspondent has deposed before the District Forum as witness to establish the fact mentioned in their reports. It has been alleged in the complaint that after house was inundated with flood water, the opposite parties were requested to cut off the electric supply to the area but they failed to take any action, which resulted in electrocution of the deceased. But the opposite parties have categorically denied having received any such complaint from the family members of the complainant or from any other resident of the area. The opposite parties have proved on record the complaint register, being maintained at the complaint centre of Sultanwind, Sub Division, a scrutiny of which reveals that no such complaint was recorded in the register on 13.8.2008. The complainant has relied upon the complaint register of Ghee Mandi, Sub Division, Amritsar in which, at Sr.No.666, a complaint has been recorded by one Jaswinder Singh of House No.474, East Mohan Nagar at 8:30 AM. But there is no mention of the nature of complaint to suggest that the opposite parties were requested for cutting of the supply to the area. Against this complaint, the complainant staff had given the remarks to the effect that the "transformer pertained to Sultanwind area and consumer was intimated". Thereafter, no complaint was lodged in the concerned Sultanwind area. There is nothing even to suggest that opposite parties were ever requested to cut off the supply to East Mohan Nagar area. Moreover no lapse on the part of the opposite parties has been pointed out which might have caused leakage of current in the house of the deceased. As per the version of complainant, the leakage was reported in the kitchen of the house No.501, East Mohan Nagar. In case it was so, it could not be due to fault in the lines laid down by the opposite parties. Rather the same was only on account of some defect in the internal wiring in the house of the complainant. Apparently the protection system, provided for safeguarding against the leakage of such current, did not function for which the complainant/residents of the house are to be held responsible and not the opposite parties. Instead of cutting the supply to the entire area, the "main switch" controlling the supply to the house was to be switched off for avoiding any leakage of current which was never done. Moreover, the alleged complaint by one Jaswinder Singh R/o 474, East Mohan Nagar has nothing to do with the leakage of current in House No.501, East Mohan Nagar. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar/SDM Amritsar might have conducted inquiry into the matter before payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on the Bhog Ceremony of the deceased, which was disbursed vide SDM, Amritsar letter in which it has been stated that Sumeet Kaur died due to electric current caused due to heavy rains on 13.08.2008. But there is absolutely no reference how this conclusion was reached. Moreover, this letter does not state that opposite parties were responsible for the incident of electrocution. Even after the incident no complaint or representation was made to the opposite parties, which could have been investigated to establish the fact if the deceased died due to electrocution for which opposite parties can be held responsible. Mere distribution of Ex-Gratia payment by the Deputy Commissioner to a flood victim cannot be treated as a proof to hold opposite parties responsible for the unfortunate incident. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal of the opposite parties (First Appeal No.1187 of 2009) is accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequentially, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. For the reasons stated above, the cross appeal (First Appeal No.1124 of 2009) filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation stands dismissed. No order as to costs" .

Hence, the present revision petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr Updip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the newspaper clipping as also from the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it was clear that the mother of the petitioner Smt Sumeet Kaur had died due to electrocution. He has also drawn our attention to the affidavit of Jaswinder Singh son of Gurdial Singh which reads as under: "I Jaswinder Singh son of Gurdial Singh resident of 474 A, East Mohan Nagar aged 55 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: That I am a resident of above-mentioned and a consumer of electricity board. That I along with other residents of my locality approached PSEB''s office on 13.08.2008 made a written complaint to disconnect the supply of electricity of the locality as the rain water has entered the house of the locality, due to that there is a danger of electric shock, but the Board took no action regarding my request/ complaint, i.e., why due to the negligence and deficiency of services of electricity board, the death of Sumeet Kaur happened. That the above said complaint was got registered by me on 13.08.2008 at 08.00 p m in morning at Ghee Mandi (Amritsar). That the death of Sumeet Kaur was due to the Electric Shock".

He then drew our attention to the typed copy of the complaint register of Sub Division officer (Distribution) Ghee Mandi, Amritsar, where there is an entry at S no. 666 at 08.30 A M of a complaint by Shri Jaswinder Singh, House no. 474 A East Mohan Nagar. Shri Sardara Singh and Shri Paramjit Singh were deputed to look into the complaint and thereafter, it has been recorded that at 09.00 A M "this area comes under Sultanwind and the consumer has been informed". Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from this, it is an admitted fact that though the respondents were informed of the inundation of the area due to heavy rain and requested to cut the electricity they did not do the same leading to electrocution of the petitioner''s mother.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has strongly denied the allegation of learned counsel for the petitioner. She contended that there is no evidence on record that the petitioner''s mother Smt Sumeet Kaur had died due to electrocution. The death certificate does not give the cause of death and the newspaper clipping cannot be relied upon as evidence to this effect. She has further stated that the compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh given to maternal grand-father Shri Jaswinder Singh nowhere proves that Smt Sumeet Kuar had died due to electrocution nor does it mention anywhere that it was due to any deficiency or negligence on the part of the respondent. She categorically stated that there is no evidence on record to support that any complaint was made regarding inundation of the area due to rain water and any leakage of electricity or any request to switch off the electricity to the area, nor was there any complaint of any mishap of death due to electrocution. She has further stated that the respondents have not received any complaint from the petitioner''s family regarding the death Smt Sumeet Kaur due to electrocution. She also pointed out that Shri Jaswinder Singh who as per the complaint register made a complaint was a neighbour. Further, the man deputed to look into the complaint had informed Shri Singh to complain to the concerned area in-charge of Sultanwind.

We have carefully gone through the record. There are some contradictions and discrepancies in the facts as given in the complaint and in the panchanama by the respectables. In the complainant very scanty details are given in paragraph 5, which reads as under: " That the deceased Sumeet Kaur alias Shelly came done from the room to kitchen in order to prepare the tea for the family and when she came to kitchen to prepare the tea, due to electrocution in the kitchen, she died at the spot". The panchanama, however, mentions that " today, at about 10.30 AM when it was still raining, due to accumulation of water in the ground floor of the house, the family was doing kitchen work on the first floor. As per family members, Sumeet Kaur came to the ground floor of the house for getting lighter for the purpose of igniting fire from Kitchen at ground floor, where all of a sudden she was electrocuted due to short circuit of electricity, and she was taken in the car to Kakkar Hospital in unconscious condition for treatment but the doctor there after examining Sumeet Kaur aged 25 years declared her dead. This girl Sumeet Kaur died due to sudden short circuit of electricity and nobody is having any doubt and the parental as well as in law family do not want any legal proceedings with this regard" .

As per the complaint Smt Sumeet Kaur had come down to the Kitchen to prepare tea (no time mentioned), whereas the Panchnama goes on to say that the family was cooking on the roof and the deceased had come down at 10.30 a m from the roof for getting lighter for igniting fire in the kitchen.

Complainant has mentioned in the panchanama that she died at the spot whereas the panchanama mentions that she was taken to Kakkar Hospital in an unconscious condition for treatment and that the doctor after examining Sumeet Kaur declared her dead. In support of the visit to the hospital, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show us any evidence/ document of her medical examination at Kakkar Hospital as also the death certificate by the Doctor who examined her. Admittedly, there is no post mortem report and no FIR.

Further, learned counsel for the petitioner could show us no evidence of any complaint made to the respondents of inundation of the area and the house and asking for disconnection of electricity. Admittedly, no complaints were made to the respondents by any member of the family of the petitioner either prior to or post death of Smt Sumeet Kaur. As per the electricity Act, the electricity authorities distribute and provide electricity up to the meter and the internal wiring of the house is of the responsibility of the house holders. Section 161 of the Electricity Act reads as under: 161. Notice of accidents and inquiries - (1) if any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may be general or special order, direct.

(2) The Appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector or any other person appointed by it in this behalf, to inquiry and report -

(a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, or

(b) as to the manner in, and extent to, which the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations made thereunder or of any licence, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with.

(3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub-Section (2) shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objections, and every person required by an Electrical Inspector be legally bound to do so within the meaning of section 176 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

The petitioner has nowhere has stated that they gave any notice of the accident which resulted in the death of Smt Sumeet Kumar to the respondents requesting for an enquiry to be conducted. Since no enquiry was asked for or enquiry conducted by the electrical inspector or on behalf of it, it has not been established as to what was the cause of death and whether the respondents were responsible for the same. Admittedly the death certificate does not give the cause of death and no authority has held the respondents guilty of deficiency of service.

In view of the above, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity, thus the revision petition as also the complaint is dismissed.