1. THE main controversy which swirls around the case is, whether, Chaudhary Bhimeswara Swamy, Chaudhary Meghna, and Chaudhary L.N. Suryakant, the LRs of the deceased Smt. Chelluboina Durgamba, by whom the present complaint has been filed, comes within the definition of "consumer", under the C.P. Act, 1986.
2. AS a matter of fact, the wife of complainant No.1, passed away on 26.01.2004, due to electrocution at SIIL Campus, Paloncha, and a police case was registered for the negligence and for non -maintaining high -tension power transmission wires, in residential colonies. The deceased was a house -wife , aged about 39 years'' and a Graduate. She was returning home after purchase of vegetables, when a high power transmission wire got suddenly cut and fell on her in the residential area at SIIL Campus, Paloncha. The complainants demanded compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/ -, through legal notice. Ultimately, a complaint was filed before the District Forum.
3. ACCORDING to the Petitioners /OPs, the high -tension wire lines were installed 25 years'' ago and those lines were regularly checked and maintained by them. The live wire was cut due to unforeseen gale and heavy storm which was beyond the control of the OPs. There was a passage to the residential house, through the Manager''s Main Gate, but through the place of accident. It is contended that a civil court is competent to deal with the case.
The District Forum dismissed the complaint.
4. THE State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the complainants , LRs of deceased and granted a sum of Rs. 2,44,000/ - as compensation, to the complainants/LRs, along with interest. The operative portion runs, as follows : -
"In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed directing the respondents to pay Rs.2,44,000/ - along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment and Rs.2,000/ - towards costs. On deposit of the said amount, the District Forum shall deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in the names of appellants'' No. 2 and 3 till they attain majority, in any Nationalised Bank. The appellant No.1 is at liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs.44,000/ - and interest accrued on the deposit. Time for compliance four weeks".
5. AGGRIEVED by that order, the petitioners/OPs filed the present revision petition with delay of 41 days. For the reasons explained in the application for condonation of delay, the said delay is hereby condoned.
6. COUNSEL for the petitioners vehemently argued that the deceased was not a ''consumer''. He has brought our attention to ''Digest'' of important cases. Few authorities are in favour of the contention raised by the complainants, which pertain to the State Commission. The main authority cited by him is reproduced here, as under :
"A cow belonging to the complainant was electrocuted by coming into contact with an electric post. The plea of the petitioner complainant was that the State Electricity Board which was responsible for supply of electricity in the area shall pay compensation to make good her loss. Referring to another decision of the Haryana State Commission, the National Commission held that the grievance put forward by the complainant did not constitute a consumer dispute as defined in the Act nor was it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Board. The District Forum was in error in allowing compensation to the complainant Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Ganga Devi, National Commission, 1996 3 CPJ 182 ".
7. FOR the following reasons, we are unable to concur with the contentions raised by the petitioners. In the same ''Digest'' of Important Cases, there is mention of one more case, i.e.,
"Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Charan Singh, Rajasthan State Commission, 1999 1 CPJ 162 The facts of this case are - - "The complainant was carrying on cultivation and also had a farm. The electric wires passing over the fields had become so loose that they were hardly 7 or 8 feet high from the ground. Whenever there is a storm, they, it was feared, could be broken and fallen to the ground. Written complaints were made to the Rajasthan Electricity Board which were followed by personal representations. A letter was also written to the Collector of the District who sent it to the Executive Engineer. No action was taken to put the wires right. On 29.06.1994, when his buffalo was grazing in the field, the wire broke down resulting in the electrocution of the buffalo. After getting the post -mortem of the buffalo, he lodged a claim before the District Forum. The respondents filed a very casual reply stating that the complainant was not a consumer, no service was rendered to him and the Board was not liable to pay any damages to him. The District Forum after considering the evidence produced by the complainant, awarded compensation and costs to the complainant. On appeal, the State Commission observed they cannot enhance the compensation as there is no appeal before them. They passed severe strictures against the officers concerned for filing a false reply".
8. MOREOVER , the State Commission has very well considered all these questions and has placed reliance on few other authorities. The State Commission has referred to authorities of Hon''ble Supreme Court - 1999 SCC (Crl.) 251, and 1 (2005) CPJ 778. He also placed reliance on the decision of the National Commission in Karnataka Electricity Board, Now known as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., and Anr. Vs. Smt. Sharavva and Ors., 2002 3 CPJ 269, by a Bench headed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, wherein it was held that there is a deficiency in service in laying power lines, loose, hung very low, precariously connected to poles on either side death due to electrocution therefore, Electricity Board liable to pay compensation with interest.
9. RECENTLY , in OP 253 of 2002, titled Smt. Munesh Devi Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., and Ors., decided on 03.02.2014, this Bench held that death of husband of the complainant was caused due to the transformer installed and maintained by the Opposite Parties, while he was returning home from duty. He was taken to the Safdarjung Hospital, where he succumbed to burn injuries. This Commission awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 37.00 lakhs, along with interest.
10. AGGRIEVED by that order, an SLP was filed by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 5672 of 2014 dismissed the same, vide its order dated 22.08.2014.
11. THE facts of this case fully dovetail with the case of Smt.Munesh Devi, OP 253/2002 .
12. THE OPs have admitted that the wires were of 25 years'' old. No effort was made by them to change the same with a new one. This itself shows the negligence on the part of the OPs. The duty cast on the OPs is to check the wires, every now and then. They should anticipate what will happen if such and such natural disaster happens. This shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the OPs/petitioners. This point was, however, not raised.
13. THE revision petition is lame of strength and is, hereby, dismissed with costs. However, the compensation given to the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 is on the lower side. The complainants were harassed for more than a decade. It will be very difficult for the children to stay without the bringing up and protection of their mother. They must have become majors, by now.
14. IN view of peculiar circumstances, we impose costs of Rs. 5.00 lakhs upon the petitioners/OPs, out of which, costs of Rs. 2,00,000/ -, each, will go to the children, i.e. complainant Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, and costs of Rs. 1,00,000/ - will go to the complainant No.1. The above said costs and the decretal amount as ordered by the State Commission be paid to each of the complainants'', separately, through Demand Drafts, within 90 days'' from the receipt of copy of this order, otherwise, the entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a., till its realization.
