Rajasthan State Electricty Board vs Mahadev Meena

BOTH the aforesaid appeals are being decided by this common judgment as in both of them, common questions of law and facts are involved and they have been preferred against the same order dated 16.7.1998 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur -II, Jaipur in Case No. 365/1996. Appeal No. 1496/1998 Chairman, Raj. State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Mahadev Meena

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1986'') has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 16.7.1998 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur -II, Jaipur by which the complaint filed by the complainant -respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay to the complainant -respondent a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for death of his wife and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : On 30.3.1996, the complainant -respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the District Forum, Jaipur -II, Jaipur stating inter alia that he was a consumer of the appellants (RSEB) as had taken connection for supply of electricity in his field. It was further stated in the complaint that electric wire had snapped from the electric pole and had fallen in his field, as a result of which, on 26.7.1984 when his wife Dhanni (hereinafter referred to as ''the deceased'') was passing, she came in contact with live wire, which had snapped from the pole, as a result of which, she had died. The further case of the complainant was that because of negligence of the appellants, that incident had taken place and for that, he had claimed a sum of Rs. 2 lac. A reply was filed by the appellants and their case was that no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants could be attributed as no information about lying of live wire in his field, which had snapped from the pole, was given by the complainant -respondent. Furthermore, the learned District Forum had no jurisdiction in such cases and such type of cases could be tried under the Fatal Accident Act or by Civil Court. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum, Jaipur -II, Jaipur through impugned order dated 16.7.1998 allowed the complaint of the complainant, in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia : (i) That from the post mortm report of the deceased and other materials available on record, it appears that the deceased had died because of electrocution from the live wire lying in the field of the complainant, which had snapped from the pole. Thus, complainant was a consumer.

(ii) That on point of compensation, the learned District Forum came to conclusion that since the deceased was of the age of about 50 years, therefore, it found Rs. 50,000 as just compensation.

Aggrieved from the said order dated 16.7.1998 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur -II, Jaipur, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

IN this appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the findings of the learned District Forum on point of jurisdiction of the learned District Forum are wholly erroneous one as since deceased had died from electrocution from live wire, which had snapped from pole, in the field, therefore, learned District Forum had no jurisdiction and matter should have been tried either by Civil Court or by other Forum under the provisions of the Fatal Accident Act. In this respect, the learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decisions of National Commission in Shankar Sitaram Jadhav v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, III (1994) CPJ 50 (NC) and Haryana State Electricity Board v. Smt. Ganga Devi, III (1996) CPJ 182 (NC).

ON the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent -complainant has supported the impugned order and he has further submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is not just and proper and it should be enhanced appropriately. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and gone through the entire materials available on record.

IN this case, the fact that deceased had died after coming into contact with live wire lying in field of complainant, which had snapped from the pole, is not in dispute.

THE question for consideration is whether the complainant -respondent could be treated as consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1986 or not. In our considered opinion, complainant could be treated as consumer where electric wires are found in existence at a close distance from the house especially in the field belonging to the complainant.

FURTHERMORE , when the sanctioned domestic connection electric wires connecting the field of complainant and if any incident takes place either because of snapping of the wire from the pole or due to sparking of electric wires, the complainant could be considered as consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1986.

THIS State Commission is aware that where the death has been caused due to electrocution in public street, in such case, complainant could not be treated as consumer as he has neither hired the services nor he is beneficiary of the services. Apart from this, the appellants are under strict liability to pay compensation, if the energy transmitted caused injury or death of human being because of live wire lying in the field belonging to the complainant.

THUS , the findings of the learned District Forum treating the complainant as consumer are liable to be confirmed one, as they do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality.

SO far as the law laid down in the case of Shankar Sitaram Jadhav (supra) is concerned, in that case, live wire had fallen down because of heavy rains not in the house, but in the public street. Therefore, this authority would not be helpful to the appellants. Similarly, in the case of Smt. Ganga Devi (supra), cow was electrocuted on account of coming into contact with an electric post in public street and, therefore, this authority would also not be helpful to the appellants, as facts of the above cases stand distinguished from the facts of present case. In Karnataka Electricity Board v. Smt. Sharavva and Ors., III (2002) CPJ 269 (NC)=2002 (2) CPR 73 (NC), where deceased died on account of electrocution as deceased came in contact with live wire which had snapped from electric pole supplying electricity to feed pump set of deceased for irrigation and in that case, deceased was treated as consumer and award of compensation to the complainant, legal heirs of deceased, by the District Forum was maintained. In view of this, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the matter should have been agitated either before the Civil Court or before the Forum under the provisions of the Fatal Accident Act stands rejected.

FOR the reasons stated above, there is merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. Appeal No. 1498/1998 Mahadev Meena v. Chairman, Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Ors.

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of the amount of compensation. It may be stated here that the age of the deceased was 50 years and in our considered opinion, for the death of lady of 50 years, awarding of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000 cannot be said to be just, proper, reasonable and equitable one and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it just and proer to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 75,000 and it further appears that no interest has been awarded by the learned District Forum on the amount of compensation and, therefore, we deem it just and proper to award interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of enhanced compensation of Rs. 75,000 from the date of death of deceased till payment is made and to that extent, impugned order of the learned District Forum deserves to be modified and this appeal deserves to be allowed.

BEFORE parting with the appeal, it may be stated here that part of the impugned order of the learned District Forum by which amount of compensation was ordered to be recovered from the persons, who were found guilty, cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, in the result, the Appeal No. 1496/1998 filed by the appellants -RSEB is dismissed. However, the Appeal No. 1498/1998 filed by the complainant is partly allowed in the manner that the complainant would be entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000 in place of Rs. 50,000 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of death of deceased till payment is made. Further, that part of the impugned order of the learned District Forum by which amount of compensation was ordered to be recovered from the persons, who were found guilty, is quashed and set aside. The imugned order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur -II, Jaipur dated 16.7.1998 stands modified accordingly to the extent as indicated above. Ordered accordingly.