State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prem Kapoor, vs Kiran Devi, on 4 August, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 04-08-2008 Appeal No. FA-2007/332 (Arising from the order dated 17-02-2007 passed by District Forum (North East), Nand Nagri, Delhi in complaint case No. 297/2005) Shri Prem Kapoor, -Appellant Prop./Cable Operator Through M/s New Work, Mr. D.K. Singh with S/o Shri Harchar Singh, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, R/o C-491, DDA Flats, Advocates. Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. Versus Smt. Kiran Devi, , -Respondent No.1 W/o Late Sh. Sher Singh, Through R/o H. No. 1/3807, Gali No.4, Kunwar Pal Singh, Bhagwan Pur Khera, Advocate Shahdara, Delhi. 2. Shri Mukesh Yadav, -Respondent No.2 Prop. M/s Transex Cable Network, R/o 1/4769, Gali No.8, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. CORAM: Mr. Justice J.D.Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) On the allegation that husband of the respondent died due to electric shock while installing cable connection in the TV which was given by the appellant, the appellant was held guilty for deficiency in service and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Allegations of the respondent leading to the impugned order, in brief, were that she along with her husband were tenant of Shri Ganga Ram, landlord since March 2004. Appellant Mr. Prem Kapoor was the proprietor of M/s New Work who is the cable operator and has provided cable connections in the various houses of the locality. M/s Transex Cable Network was the over all incharge of the entire network. They approached the respondent and her late husband for cable connection and they agreed to have cable connection on agreed rate, terms and conditions. ON 28-05-2004, the respondent was cleaning her house and expensive gadgets were shifted to the room of landlord and after completion of cleaning of their house, her late husband carried back the gadgets including television back to their room and while he was connecting the cable connection provided by the appellant he was jolted with electric current as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. He was rushed to GTB Hospital where he was declared brought dead. That the deceased was wearing rubber chappal and was totally dry at the time of incident and the current went through his body due to the defective wire. The deceased was the consumer/customer of the appellant being operator and owner who had provided him the cable connection.
As such the appellants are liable for this incident.
4. As against this it was pleaded by the appellant that he was not the necessary and proper party and has nothing to do with alleged cable connection taken by the respondent and there was no privity of contract between them. The appellant has not provided any connection to the respondent nor they approached the respondent or her husband for taking cable connection. It is also denied that the respondent was cleaning her house and in this process expensive gadgets were shifted or that her husband was connecting the cable connection with television provided by the appellant when he was jolted with electronic current and also denied that he was wearing rubber chappals and was dry as alleged. It is also denied that he received electric current because of the defective cable wiring and pleaded that the appellant was not at all deficient in service as he has not provided any connection to the respondent or her husband.
5. Respondent No.2/M/s Transex Cable Network has also denied the allegation pleading that the complaint has been filed by the respondent to extract money from the respondent No.2 and the respondent very well knows that there was no privity of contract between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is not the proprietor/owner of M/s Transex Cable Network as stated in the complaint. The complaint has been filed without any cause of action. There was no deficiency in service on behalf of respondent No.2.
6. On merits it was pleaded that Prem Kumar is the proprietor and cable operator of M/s New Work. It was denied that respondent No.2 was the proprietor and over all incharge of the network. It was also denied that respondent was provided with a cable connection and pleaded that the husband of the respondent was himself negligent as stated by the respondent in, as much as, he was connecting the cable connection to the television. He should have sufficient knowledge, experience and skill before doing such work.
The staff of the cable network was not called by the husband of the respondent for making connection and the respondent cannot take advantage of her husbands fault. The connection, if any, was being used by the respondent by way of theft. The respondent No.2 neither provided the connection nor collected money from the locality. Further that the wife of respondent No.2 is running a cable network in the name and style of Pranshu Cable Network and respondent No.2 is only managing and looking after the same. Appellant had taken the cable connection from that network on mutual consent that appellant will provide connection in the locality of the respondent. Appellant is solely responsible for maintenance and collecting charges. Respondent No.2 has no concern with the staff of the cable network in the area. It was pleaded that it is beyond imagination that a person can die due to cable wire. The deceased might be connecting the electrical wire and due to his negligence he might have got electric shock by touching the electric wire. Further that in the FIR filed by the respondent also respondent No.2 was not impleaded showing thereby that complaint against respondent No.2 was only an after thought. It was further pleaded that neither the husband of respondent nor the respondent was a consumer and complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.
7. However, the appellant failed to produce any record of any customer having provided cable connection by issuing receipts or any other document. The plea of the appellant that there was no cable connection provided, on the face of it has been falsified by the affidavit filed by the respondent and the facts mentioned in the FIR lodged with the police showing that the respondent had been paying Rs. 250/- per month. However, there is no dispute that the death of the husband of the respondent occurred due to electric shock and report was lodged with the police and charge sheet has been filed by the police against appellants.
8. It is contended that as far as the appellant is concerned no specific role or negligence has been assigned by the District Forum. He is only a cable operator. Para 3 of the affidavit filed by way of evidence of the Landlord of the premises, read as under:-
3. That the deponent is landlord of the complainant relating to the aforesaid house.
Respondent No.1 Prem Kapoor is proprietor and cable operator of M/s New work and operating the cable network in the area of the deponent, who has provided cable connection to various houses in the locality. Respondent No.2 is owner and over all incharge of the entire network. Both the respondents approached the complainant and her late husband as also the deponent and impressed upon them to have cable connection. Both of them assured the complainant and her u\husband that they have insulated cable and adequate equipments and would provide safe and secured cable connection in their premises on being assured of safe connection. The complainant and her husband agreed to have cable connection in their premises. Consequently both the respondents provided cable connection on mutually agreed rate terms and conditions.
9. Aforesaid narration of facts inspire confidence as to the deficiency in service on the part of appellant as well as respondent No.2 in as much as that cable wires were naked and cable wire as well as electric wire touched each other and electric current was going through the electric wire.
10. As is apparent from the aforesaid conspectus of facts both the appellant as well as respondent No.2 were equally liable for negligence in not properly keeping the wires of cable connection and electric connection separately and insulated. In the result we hold them equally liable and deem that lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be shared by appellant as well as respondent No.2 shall meet the ends of justice.
11. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
12. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
13. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith after completion of due formalities.
14. A copy of the order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
15. Announced on 4th August, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj