National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Prakash Gajendrabhai Desai vs Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. on 17 September, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO.103 of 2007 (From the Order dated 30.11.2006 in Complaint Case No.69/97 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat) 1. Prakash Gajendrabhai Desai, 2. Purab Prakash Desai (minor) 3. Ms. Ushna Prakash Desai (minor) All residing at :- 12, Sagar Twin Bunglows, Vrundavan Estate, Pashabhai Park, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390 007 GUJARAT .. Appellants Vs. 1. Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. Race Course Circle, Vadodara, Gujarat State 2. The Chairman, Gujarat Electricity Board, Race Course Circle, Vadodara, Gujarat State 3. The State of Gujarat, Through the Electrical Inspector, Sachivcalay Gandhinagar, Gujarat State, Race Course Circle, Vadodara, Gujarat State 4. Shri Ashvinbhai Amrutlal Shah, C/O Shyamal Builders, 2, Sarthi, Pashbhai Park, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390 007 Gujarat State, 5. Baroda Municipal Corporation, Corporation Building, Market, Rajmahal Road, Vadodara-01 Gujara ..Respondents BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Appellants : Mr. Satyajit Sen, Advocate For the Respondent : Dr. L.K. Bhaya, Advocate Nos. 1 and 2 For the Respondent : Deleted vide orders dated 12.10.07 and No.3 & 5 12.5.011 For the Respondent No.4 : N E M O PRONOUNCED ON: 17.09.2012 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN, J., PRESIDENT Complainants/Appellants have filed this Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation against the judgment and order dated 30.11.06 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (in short, the State Commission) in Complaint Case No. 69/1997 whereby the State Commission while allowing the complaint has directed the Respondent No.4 to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh towards compensation to the Complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the complaint till payment. Rs.5,000/- have been awarded towards costs.
FACTS:-
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that deceased Smt. Darshnaben, wife of Complainant No.1 and mother of Complainant Nos. 2 & 3 got electrocuted on 28.2.97 by touching the iron grill and railing on the outer wall/compound wall of her residence. She was taken to the Mayo Hospital where she died soon after reaching. As per averments made in the complaint, distribution box of electricity was fixed on the compound wall grill by the Opposite Parties for distribution of electricity supply. It was fitted with iron wires and iron nails on the grill and the compound wall due to which the electric current was passing to the compound wall grill and when the deceased touched the iron grill she was electrocuted and died. Complainants, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission claiming a sum of Rs.20 lakh towards compensation along with interest @ 18% p.a. and costs.
Respondents No.1 to 3 & 5, on being served, entered appearance filed their reply denying the allegation made in the complaint. It was pleaded that the Complainants were not the consumers as the electricity connection was given to Pasabhai Park and not to the Complainants. That the distribution box with iron wire was not fixed by them and the same was got affixed through Ashwinbhai Shah, Respondent No.4 builder by the Complainant. That Respondent No.4 fixed the distribution box of electricity with the permission of Vadodara Municipality and undertook to maintain it also. That the responsibility of the answering Respondent was limited to supply of electricity only.
Respondent No.4 did not choose to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte.
State Commission, after taking into consideration the material placed on record and the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the Builder Respondent No.4 had installed the private cable, transformer, distribution box etc. after entering into the agreement with the Vadodara Municipality and as such it was his responsibility to maintain the same. Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 (Respondents No.1 to 3) were absolved of any negligence and liability. Complaint against them was dismissed.
Complaint was partly allowed and the Respondent No.4 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainants towards compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the complaint till realization. Rs.5,000/- were awarded as costs.
State Commission held as under:-
In all circumstances, looking to the documents and statements given by the witnesses, it is not disputed that Smt. Darshnaben has died due to electrocution and shock by touching the grill which was receiving the current leakage from the distribution box which was fitted on the pillar and grill of her bungalow, this event had occurred on Feb.28, 1997. It is also a true fact that Shri Ashwinibhai Shah had undergone an agreement with Vadodara Municipality and the private cable, transformer, distribution box, etc., were kept and installed at Vrundavan estate, Pashabhai Park, Race Course Circle, Vadodara and it was the responsibility of Shri Ashwinibhai to maintain them, who was the organizer, builder and promoter. As per the opposite parties, Shri Ashwinibhai Shah has supplied the map to Vadodara Municipal Corporation to keep the cable, distribution box and transformer and was permitted and against the same, he has shifted the place of distribution box nearby the complainants residence. The opposite party No.1 has produced he copy of the original plan, which gives the complete facts. The opposite party further says that Shri Ashiwinbhai has not kept the distribution box in safe place, kept at unauthorized place and have kept touching with the iron wire. The opposite party have given the information of cable purchased by Shri Ashwinibhai and have further stated that the opposite party submits such type of cable were never purchased by the opposite party which are laid at the place of the complainant. Even on todays date (on the day of complaint) the opposite party Ashwinibhai Shah is maintaining his personal transformer, distribution box and cable. The reply of the opposite party and the statement of their witnesses also state the said facts. In view of the above facts and documents, it reflects that the allegations against opposite party No.1-Madhya Gujarat Electric Company, its Chairman-opposite party No.2, opposite party No.3-Gujarat State or the opposite party No.5-Vadodara Municipal Corp. are not proved. The opposite party No.4 Ashwinibhai shah has not appeared, not filed his reply and have not alleged in his defence or against the facts of the complainant and opposite parties Nos.1,2,3 and 5. If he would have used the superior cable, distribution box would have been kept at the proper place then this accident would have been avoided and he has failed to take such safety measures which is reflected. Hence, Ashwinbhai Shah is responsible to pay the compensation.
Dis-satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, Appellants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
Respondent No.4 has not filed the appeal challenging the order of the State Commission.
Respondent No.4 is not present despite service. Proceeded ex-parte.
Respondents No. 3 and 5 were deleted from the array of the parties by the orders dated 12.10.07 and 12.05.11 at the instance of the Appellants. Counsel for the Appellants does not contest the finding recorded by the State Commission absolving Respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 of any negligence. He presses his appeal against Respondent No. 4 only.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submits that the deceased was the proprietor of M/s. Waves Health and Beauty Care, Baroda and her gross income for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 was Rs.75,744/- and 1,74,408/- respectively.
Her net income for these two years was Rs.32,660/- and Rs.78,135/-. That the deceased was only 44 years of age at the time of her death and would have lived upto the age of 76 years at least as his father was still alive at the age of 76. He further submits that considering the age and income of the deceased, the State Commission has not awarded the adequate compensation.
We find substance in the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants. The deceased was only 44 years of age at the time of her death. Since the tax return for the year 1996-97 was filed after her death the same is not taken into consideration. For the assessment year 1995-96, her net income was Rs.32,660/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, her net income comes to Rs.21,774/- which is rounded of to Rs.22,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 15 can be applied. Net payable compensation by multiplying Rs.22,000/- by 15 comes to Rs.3,30,000/-
For the reasons stated above, the Appeal is partly allowed and the Respondent No.4 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- to the Appellants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization. The costs of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the State Commission is maintained. No order as costs.
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER Yd