State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hpseb vs Bhanu Pratap Singh on 1 May, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No.113/2010 Date of Decision: 01.05.2012 1. H.P.S.E.B. Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-5, through its Secretary. 2. H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division, Chopal, Post Office and Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, through its Executive Engineer. 3. H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division, Chopal, Post Office and Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, through its Junior Engineer. 4. H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division, Chopal, Post Office and Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, through its T-Mate. .. Appellants Versus Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh son of Shri Bhadu Singh, R/o Village Saingh, Post Office Mandhana, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. Respondent Coram Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellants: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) This appeal by H.P.S.E.B. and its various units, is directed against the order dated 28.12.2009 of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, has been allowed and they have been ordered to pay `50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum by way of damages, `5000/- as punitive damages and `2500/- as litigation expenses for the injuries sustained by the complainant-respondent due to electric shock, which he sustained while passing by a transformer installed by the appellants, allegedly in the middle of path.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of appeal, may be noticed. Complainant-respondent is resident of Village Sainj of Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. Electricity is supplied by the appellants to the residential premises of the father of the complainant and the complainant is beneficiary of service of supply of electricity being a member of his fathers family. A transformer is installed in the village for supply of electricity to the residence of father of the complainant as also other residences. According to the complainant, transformer is installed in the middle of path and on 13.08.2004, when he was passing by the side of the transformer, he suffered an electric shock, resulting in burn injuries to his right hand, right leg and all other parts of his body on the right side. He was rushed to Hospital at Nerwa (Chopal), from-where he was referred to I.G.M.C. Shimla. He remained under treatment continuously for three months at I.G.M.C. Shimla and had been visiting the hospital quite frequently for follow up.
He filed a complaint, seeking damages for injuries sustained by him.
3. Complaint was contested by the present appellants. They denied that transformer was installed in the middle of path or so close to the path, as to endanger human life or public safety.
4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay damages, punitive damages and litigation expenses, as aforesaid.
Appellants are aggrieved by the order and have, therefore, filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It is not in dispute that father of the complainant is supplied electricity in his residence and the complainant resides with his father. It has been admitted during the course of hearing of appeal that a case was registered against the concerned functionaries of the appellants-board and they stand convicted under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code. Appellants did not dispute that the complainant-respondent suffered an electric shock and sustained burn injuries. Their counsel submits that injuries, which the complainant-respondent sustained, were minor and therefore, quantum of compensation awarded by Learned District Forum is grossly on higher side. According to him, injuries did not cause any disability.
7. The very fact that concerned functionaries of electricity board have been convicted of an offence under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, proves that complainant-respondent sustained grievous injuries. Though the said injuries might have not resulted in permanent disability, complainant-respondent remained under treatment continuously for a period of three months and was still under treatment, when the complaint was filed, a little less than two years after the incident. There are two taxi receipts against which fare of `6000/- has been paid. Complainant-respondent, admittedly, made numerous visits from his native place to Shimla. May be that he did not travel every time by a taxi, but must have been travelling by buses. There are also vouchers of `3572/-
on record, indicating that he spent this much amount of money on account of purchase of medicines, required for his treatment. Burn injuries must have caused lot of physical pain, besides resulting in permanent scars at the site of injuries.
8. Looking to all these facts and also the fact that complainant-respondent was under treatment, even after two years of occurrence, we do not think the amount of `50,000/- awarded by Learned District Forum, as damages, is on the higher side.
9. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
10. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member May 01, 2012 *dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?