State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Divisional Manager, Tamluk Division, ... vs Smt. Dipanita Bhowmik on 12 July, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/508/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 13/05/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/14/2016 of District Purba Midnapur) 1. Divisional Manager, Tamluk Division, WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhaban, P.O. & P.S.- Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur. 2. Station Manager, Tamluk Division, WBSEDCL Bidyut Bhaban, P.O. & P.S.- Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Dipanita Bhowmik W/o Lt. Dinesh Bhowmik, Vill. Bar Basanta, P.O. Simulia, P.S. Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 12 Jul 2017 Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing - 13.06.2016 Date of Hearing - 03.07.2017 Challenge in this Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is to the judgement/ final order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 14/2016. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint lodged by the Respondent under Section 12 of the Act with the directions upon the Appellants to pay a sum of Rs.4,41,500/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that on 10.07.2015 at about 1:00 hours her husband Dinesh Bhowmik went to the pond behind their house for wash/bath. On the way to the pond, one high voltage electricity line was torn and fallen down. At that time, the husband of the victim sustained severe electric shock where he succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the complainant being wife of the victim approached the Ld. District Forum against the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) and their officers with certain prayers like - (a) compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-' (b) expenditure for treatment of the victim of Rs.30,000/-; (c) mental agony of the complainant at Rs.2,00,000/- and (d) litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- aggregating a total claim of Rs.17,50,000/-.
The Appellants being Opposite Parties by filing a joint written version have stated that on 10.07.2015 at midnight due to heavy storm and rain, one LT conductor snapped and failed down on the wet bamboo bridge situated behind the house of the complainant resulting to the incident. The opposite parties have stated that the deceased was negligent and as such the untoward incident has happened.
After assessing the materials on record including the evidence led by the parties, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgement/final order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the opposite parties. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement/final order passed by the Ld. District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in this Commission with the instant appeal.
Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum is on the higher side. Referring to an office order of WBSEDCL, he has submitted that the Distribution Company agreed to sanction a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased Dinesh Bhowmik, who met a fatal accident on 10.07.2015. In that perspective, the Ld. District Forum ought not to have passed an award not more than Rs.2,50,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Mr. Subhadip Biswas, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, on the other hand has submitted that due to negligent act on the part of WBSEDCL, the untoward incident of death of a person has occurred and in such a situation, the wife of the victim has suffered huge mental trauma and pain and therefore, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in passing the order impugned.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates for the parties and on a close look to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, it would reveal that on 10.07.2015 at about 00:00 hours approximately Dinesh Bhowmik of Village - Barbasanta, P.S.- Tamluk after returning home went to bath in a pond situated behind his house and on that time while he was crossing the bamboo bridge by holding hand on a bamboo support, the victim came in contact with the open wire and received an electric shock. Immediately after the incident, the victim was taken to Purba Medinipur District Hospital where the said Dinesh Bhowmik i.e. the victim of the case was declared death. The Post Mortem report speaks that the death of victim, who was then 40 years old, took place owing to electrocution. Therefore, on the basis of contents of the appellants in their written version it is quite evident that the victim succumbed to his injuries due to electrocution through a LT conductor of WBSEDCL.
The Ld. District Forum has rightly held that in view of the observation of Hon'ble National Consumer Commission in the case of CGM, P & O, NPDCL & Ors. - Vs. - Koppu Duddarajam reported in IV (2008) CPJ 139, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint was maintainable because the deceased was beneficiary to the services provided by the WBSEDCL.
Now, so far as compensation is concerned, it appears that the Ld. District Forum has applied the structured formula of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act in awarding the compensation. However, I am unable to follow how the Ld. District Forum deducted 1/4th as the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that life of a human being is precious and no amount is sufficient to compensate such loss.
The argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant for accepting Rs.2,50,000/- in every case in case of electrocution does not appear to me reasonable. In order to assess compensation, several factors have to be taken into account including status, age , income and dependency of the victim. Therefore, in assessing compensation on electrocution no straight jacket formula can be applied which in turn may cause grave injustice to a claimant.
We have already gathered that at the time of occurrence, victim was 40 years old. Though it has been stated that the victim was a temporary workers at KTPS, no income proof certificate was furnished before the Ld. District Forum. Therefore, the notional income of the victim should be assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. Had the victim remain alive, a 1/3rd income on account of personal expenses would be deducted from such income and the income of the victim, therefore, comes to Rs.24,000/- per year. As the victim was 40 years old, a multiplier of '16' will be applied in this case. Therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to 24,000 x 16 =Rs.3,84,000/-. In addition to the same, the Respondent is entitled to Rs.2,500/- as loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- as loss of consortium and thereby the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.3,93,500/-. Apart from the same, the Respondent will also be entitled to the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Ld. District Forum.
In view of the above, the impugned Judgement/Final Order is modified to the extent that the Appellants/OPs shall have to pay a sum of Rs.3,93,500/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost imposed by the Ld. District Forum aggregating a sum of Rs.4,03,500/- within 60 days from date otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from date till its full realisation.
With the above observations, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for information. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER