MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Ashok Nana Choudhari

MAHARASHTR A State Electricity Board -Petitioner herein, which was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli (hereinafter referred to as ''the District Forum'' for short), has filed the present Revision Petition. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are -

Sulochana Choudhari got electrocuted because of short circuit in the house. Complainant/Respondent being her legal heir filed a claim before the Petitioner which was not accepted, aggrieved against which, the Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

THE District Forum vide its Order dated 19.1.2007, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the realization of actual amount. Rs. 2,000 were granted as compensation for mental distress and costs. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, both the Petitioner as well as the Respondent filed an Appeal before the Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'' for short). The State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and accepted the Appeal filed by the Respondent to the extent that it awarded additional sum of Rs. 25,000 by way of compensation for loss of consortium.

THE State Commission, in its Order, has noted that there was a fault in electric pole outside; the house of the complainant. There was sparking on the pole before the incident and the supply of electricity was disconnected. After some time, electric supply was restored. Second time also, there was sparking on the pole as a result of which the electric meter was burnt and electric current entered the earth wire. Sulochana Choudhari died while taking bath as the electric current had entered the water heater as well.

COUNSEL for the Petitioner referred to the Report of the Electric Inspector that the death was not due to the negligence of the Petitioner. Rather, the same was due to the fault of the Respondent herself. We do not find any substance in this submission. The finding recorded by the Foras below on this point is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of the Revisional Jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner then contended that there was one main meter No. R -1437 in House No. 670 in the name of Ashok Nana Choudhari. In House No. 671, where the deceased was residing, there was the another meter bearing No. 404 to which the electric supply was given from the main meter No. R -1437. That both the meters were having common earthing. Electric currant entered into the earth wire because the supply to the house of the deceased was being taken from the main meter, which was supplying electricity to the adjoining house as well. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. This point was not canvassed before the District Forum or before the State Commission. Otherwise also, while installing the meter bearing No. 404 at the house of the Respondent, the Petitioner should have taken care that the earth wire in the two meters is separately connected. Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Commission can interfere with the Order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. There is no illegality or material irregularity on the part of the State Commission in this case.

FOR the reasons stated above, the order, passed by the State Commission is upheld and the Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.