PARMILA DEVI vs DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

-BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Ranbir Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh, whose date of birth was 12. 1. 1967 was employed as Commando Head Constable with total salary of Rs. 6,176 per month (basic pay Rs. 4,100) with Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad. The copy of the salary certificate is Annexure P-2 while that of matriculation certificate is Annexure P-1.

IT was next averred that on 27. 3. 2000 (wrongly stated in the complaint due to typographical mistake as 20. 3. 2000) he had gone on leave to his village and at about 6. 00 p. m. on the same day had gone to his agricultural field for working. There was an electric pole in their field from which electricity was supplied to their tubewell. While passing near the pole he came into contact with stay wire attached with the electric pole and got electric shock and was electrocuted. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. His dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for not having insulated the stay wire and not taking proper precaution, complaint was filed on 31. 5. 2001 and claimed compensation of Rs. 18 lacs by his wife Parmila Devi and his two children Master Kuldeep aged about one year and Ms. Priya, daughter aged about 4 years besides his parents Katini Devi mother and Kartar Singh father.

Opposite parties contested the complaint and filed written reply. They controverted the allegations and stated that there was no electricity given to the consumer at 6. 00 p. m. on 20. 3. 2000 as alleged and as such there was no question that Ranbir Singh had come into contact with stay wire and got electrocuted. They further stated that the stay wires were properly insulated. They next stated that the complainants had not informed them immediately after the incident and they were informed only on 28. 3. 2000 and their officers immediately rushed to the site and inspected the spot and Chief Electrical Inspector investigated the matter and submitted report on 14. 3. 2001 according to which, Ranbir Singh had gone to the filed and might have tried to get supply to his tubewell by fiddling the transformer and in that process might have got electric shock. They further stated that transformer was damaged on 25. 3. 2000 and same was replaced on 29. 3. 2000 and during this period, GO switch was cut off from the main line but he tried to operate/mishandle the GO switch forcibly and the main contact wire was broken from the bushing and 11 KVA current flowed in the handle of GO switch which caused fatal accident. They stated that the tubewell connection was running in the name of Maha Singh s/o Kartar Singh and not in the name of Ranbir Singh, hence, Ranbir Singh was not their consumer. They denied other allegations and stated that they were not liable to pay any compensation.

PARTIES adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. None appeared on behalf of com-plainants, although Sh. Krishan Singla, Advocate appeared as proxy on behalf of Sh. Varun Katyal, advocate but none appeared on behalf of complainants on 14. 12. 2007.

WE have heard Counsel for opposite parties Sh. Rohit Dheer and carefully gone through the file. Sh. Ranbir Singh s/o Sh. Kartar Singh, resident of village Khandewala, District Gurgaon was electrocuted by coming in contact with a stay wire fixed with the transformer which was supplying electricity to the tubewell of Maha Singh s/o Kartar Singh. Maha Singh is the real brother of deceased Ranbir Singh. In fact they were seven brothers in all. They had joint agricultural land. However, Ranbir Singh was employed in the police. Certificate Annexure P-2 dated 2. 11. 2000 shows that Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad had certified that constable Ranbir Singh bearing No. 838/ftb was a permanent Government employee of police department having basic pay of Rs. 4,100 per month before his death. Certificate annexure P-2 further shows that in all Ranbir Singh was drawing Rs. 6,176 per month as salary. The post-mortem report Annexure P-6 shows that dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination on 28. 3. 2000 and it was reported by the doctors as under: "the cause of death in the case was due to shock as a result of electrocution which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. " Therefore, post-mortem clearly shows that Ranbir Singh died due to electric current and the electric current which caused his death was ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

PROCEEDINGS under Section 174, Cr. P. C. had also been recorded by Sh. Bhoop Singh,asi of P. S. Farukhnagar on 28. 3. 2000. It also shows that on 27. 3. 2000 Ranbir Singh who came to his village on leave had gone at about 6. 00 p. m. to his fields to inspect the crop and when he was passing near the pole to which stay wires attached, he accidentally came into contact with a stay wire which was not insulated and electrocuted. He was immediately taken to hospital where he was declared dead. The statement of his brother Dharambir Singh S/o Kartar Singh had been recorded at the time of preparing inquest report. The other villagers were also enquired about the incident. Photographs Annexures P-3 and P-4 showed that there is electric pole near the tubewell Kotha belonging to the family of the deceased to which stay wires were fixed.

IT is mentioned in the written reply filed by O. Ps. that the matter was investigated by the Chief Electrical Inspector and he submitted his report dated 14. 3. 2001 and his findings are as under: "on 7. 3. 2000 Sh. Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh resident of village Khadewala got electric shock and died. During investigation, it was revealed from the statement of the employees of DHBVNL and villagers that 66 KVA T/f SOP to M/s Subh Lal was damaged on 25. 3. 2000. Sh. Ranbir Singh went to crop fields and might have tried to get the supply to his tubewell. In this process, he got electric shock. After that he was taken to hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor. However, it was also reported that the accident occurred with stay wire etc. which was not confirmed as the person was removed from the site immediately and no eye witness was traceale at the time of investigation. 10. I. E. Rule infringed : Rule 3 of I. E. Rules,1955 11. Person responsible for accident : Himself"

According to said report of Chief Electrical Inspector, Ranbir Singh s/o Kartar Singh of village Khadewala got electric shock and died on 7. 3. 2000 which is factually incorrect. In fact he got electric shock and died on 27. 3. 2000 and not on 7. 3. 2000. It is further stated in the report that according to statement of employees of DHBVN and villagers, Ranbir Singh went to the crop fields and might have tried to get supply to his tubewell and in this process, he got electric shock and after he was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. He had further mentioned that it was not confirmed that the accident occurred with the stay wire, etc. He next stated that no eye-witness was traceable at the time of investigation. The statements of villagers who had confirmed that the accident had not taken place with the stay wire but had taken place as he tried to get supply to his tubewell had not been placed on file. In the absence of statements of witnesses, the report of Chief Electrical Inspector cannot be believed. Moreover, it is factually incorrect that he died on 7. 3. 2000. He had not recorded statement of any eye-witness. It is further stated that transformer was damaged on 25. 3. 2000 and was replaced on 29. 3. 2000 and during the period GO Switch was completely cut off from the main line but it was alleged that Ranbir Singh tried to operate/mishandle the GO switch forcibly and came into contact with the wire broken from the bushing and II KVA current flowed in the handle of the GO switch which caused fatal accident.

It hardly matters that the tubewell was in the name of Maha Singh S/o Kartar Singh because Maha Singh is the real brother of Ranbir Singh and they were seven brothers. They were joint and had joint agricultural land, so, Ranbir Singh as a beneficiary of the tubewell was also a consumer.

IT is further stated in the affidavit of Sh. A. S. Jaiswal, SDO ''op'' Pataudi that as per statement of villagers, Ranbir Singh died when he was forcibly operating the handle of GO Switch of 63kva T/f SOP but he further stated that no one was ready to state the facts in writing. The version as stated in the affidavit of A. S. Jaiswal is not correct. The transformer may not be in working condition but it does not mean that no current was flowing in the transformer. No documentary evidence has been led that insulation of the stay wires was done. The lineman Sh. Ram Kishore, Ram Dhan, A. L. M. and Mohinder A. L. M. also filed a joint affidavit stating that they had checked the L. T. Line connected to the transformer and found O. K. They further stated that they had removed the outgoing jumper of the transformer, so, that no one can try to operate the GO switch and had intimated the feeder incharge Mahavir Singh,afm. If jumper had been removed then there was no question of flowing the current even if Ranbir Singh had tried to mishandle the GO Switch in order to operate the same. This only shows that it is a made up story that jumper had been removed. In the written reply dated 3. 10. 2002 it is not mentioned that the jumper had been removed. It is further stated in the written reply that deceased was in drunkard state and there was no supply to the LT system. The post-mortem of the dead body of Ranbir Singh was coducted on 28. 3. 2000 but the doctors did not find that he was drunkard. Thus, story of O. Ps is not believable. In fact the current was flowing in the said stay wire and by accident, Ranbir Singh came into contact with stay wire fixed with the pole from where electricity was being supplied to tubewell and was electrocuted. O. Ps did not take proper precaution to insulate the said stay wire and further it is all a made up story that he had tried to mishandle the GO switch forcibly and in that process 11 KVA current flowed in the handle of GO switch which caused fatal accident. It is admitted by opposite parties in the written reply that they received information on 28. 3. 2000 but letter annexure P-8 which was given by Dharmender Singh, brother of the deceased shows that intimation was received by the Sub-Divisional Officer, OP Sub-Divisioin, DHBVNL, Pataudi on 3. 4. 2000 about the death of Ranbir Singh by electrocution. Thereafter, SDO concerned demanded several documents which were supplied but ultimately the claim was rejected. Hence, we hold that electrocution of Ranbir Singh had taken place due to his contact with stay wire which was not insulated properly and the accident had taken place due to negligence of O. Ps , hence, they are liable to pay compensation.

RANBIR Singh was employed with the Commando police as head constable and was drawing Rs. 6,176 per month. He was a young person of about 33 years at the time of death and would have got further promotions. He must have spent 1/3rd of his salary on himself and his family. Therefore, loss to the family and estate comes to Rs. 4,000 per month i. e. Rs. 48,000 per annum. It will be proper to apply multiplier of 16. Thus, applying the multiplier of 16, the total amount comes to Rs. 7,68,000. Complainant No. 1 has been deprived of companionship whereas complainants No. 2 and 3 have been deprived of fatherly love of Ranbir Singh, so, they are entitled to Rs. 50,000 as compensation for loss of companionship and fatherly love. Hence, the complaint is accepted with costs of Rs. 10,000 and complainants are entitled to Rs. 8,18,000 in all as compensation against opposite parties who are liable to make payment of the amount jointly and severally, along with interest @ 12% p. a. six months after the date of death of Ranbir Singh on 27. 3. 2000 i. e. from 27. 9. 2000 till payment. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Complaint allowed.