WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs CHAMPA BAG

THIS appeal is at the instance of the West Bengal State Electricity Board against the order of the District Forum dated 8.6.1998. By the impugned order the Forum directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for death of complainant''s husband due to electrocution.

THE fact in short is that on 21.5.1992 a severe storm passed over the village Patinan and in consequence live wire of electric poll which was fixed by the opposite parties got snapped and it fall into water of a pond. THE water of the pond became electrified. On the next day morning the husband of Binarani went to the pond for fishing. He cast a net in the pond and died instantaneously because of electrocution. Being attracted by the shouts of the neighbours one Judhistrir Bag, the husband of the complainant rushed to the spot and jumped into the pond to save him. He was also electrocuted and died. According to the complainant the death of her husband was result of sheer negligence on the part of the opposite parties. It has been alleged that the employees of the opposite parties did not take any step to defuse the live wire nor did they take any steps to prevent the accident. The case was contested by the present appellant by filing written version wherein the jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain and determine the dispute was questioned. It has been specifically challenged that the dispute between the parties is not a consumer dispute inasmuch as the deceased or for that matter the complainant does not come within the purview of definition of the word "consumer" occurring in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Forum however, allowed the claim of the complainant and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Feeling aggrieved the opposite parties has preferred the appeal. Learned Lawyer appearing for the appellant has urged only one point in support of the appeal. He submits that the complainant was not a consumer of electricity. The electric wire got snapped by the severe storm that swept over the area and the snapped wire fell into the water of a pond. The deceased was electrocuted while trying to save another. Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines word ''consumer'' as the purchaser of any goods for a consideration etc. Surely, the clause is not attracted as the deceased has not purchased any goods from the appellant. Moreover, there is no contractual relationship between the deceased and the opposite parties. Learned Lawyer for the appellant submits that since there was no privity of contract between the parties, the Forum ought not to have entertained the claim.

CLAUSE (ii) of Section 2(d) ibid provides that if anybody hires or avails of any service for consideration etc. then the consumer is entitled to compensation. Here in the present case the deceased did not hire or avail of any service of the opposite parties. Therefore, the deceased and for that matter the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer. In our opinion the complainant is not covered by the definition of the word ''consumer''. It appears that this point was not considered by the Forum and as such the order of the Forum cannot be sustained. It appears from the materials on record that the electric wire broke down because of severe storm on the previous date. The complainant alleges negligence on the part of the opposite parties and/or its employees. According to the complainant the accidental death of her husband would not have occurred if the opposite parties and/or its employees were vigilant enough to defuse the electric wire or repair the damage. From the materials on record we notice that the death is purely accidental. As already indicated the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief before the District Forum as the deceased was not a consumer and the Consumer Protection Act does not apply to the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter the appeal should be allowed.

IN this case an unfortunate and unforeseen incident happened causing death of a person in the prime of his life. The deceased left a large family to support. However, much we regret the result, we think that no relief under the Consumer Protection Act is available to the complainant. She has chosen a wrong Forum. Her remedy lay elsewhere. It appears that in matter of accidents an enquiry is required to be conducted under Section 3 of the Indian Electricity Act. Pursuant thereto an Enquiry Committee was constituted but the report of the Enquiry Committee has not seen the light of the day even today. Before parting with the case we like to observe that the enquiry under Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act should be completed within three months from this date and the result intimated to the complainant . Considering the petition (sic.) of the complainant and her family members the present appellant do well to come forward to the help of the complainant and her family members to the extent possible under the law to help mitigate hardship faced by the complainant and her family members. With this observation we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Forum dated 8.6.1998 and dismiss the case. Appeal allowed.