State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sunita Devi Widow Of Rajbir.Amit Kumar, vs Assistant General Manager/Sub ... on 13 March, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.879 of 2013 Date of Institution: 29.11.2013 Date of Decision: 13.03.2014 1. Sunita Devi widow of Rajbir son of Kanshi Ram, 2. Amit Kumar, aged 14 years, minor son of Rajbir, 3. Sunit Kumar, aged about 11 years, minor son of Rajbir, All residents of Village Kari Tokha, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani, Appellants No.2 & 3 are minors through their next friend/natural guardian, Smt. Sunita Devi. Appellants (Complainants) Versus 1. Assistant General Manager/Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dighava Jatan, District Bhiwani. 2. Executive Engineer, Sub Urban, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, District Bhiwani. 3. The Managing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar. Respondents (Opposite Parties) CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For the parties: Sh. Naren Pratap Singh, Advocate for Sh. Ajay Chhikara, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents. O R D E R
Justice Nawab Singh, President (Oral):
1. Smt. Sunita Devi and others complainants (appellants herein) filed the present appeal against the order dated June 03rd, 2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Bhiwani.
2. On June 07th, 2009, Rajbir (since deceased) husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 and 3 died due to electrocution when he came in contact with the transformer pole in which 11000 voltage current was running. Daily Diary Report No.47 dated June 07th, 2009 was recorded in the Police Station Badhra. Post mortem on the dead body of deceased Rajbir was got conducted on June 08th, 2009. The deceased died due to the negligence of the respondents as the electric line was not maintained properly. The appellants requested the respondents to compensate them but they refused.
3. The complainants filed complaint before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4. After evaluating the evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint by granting following relief:-
.So, keeping in view these circumstances, we come to the conclusion and assess the total compensation to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- in equal share, i.e. Rs.One Lac to each complainant. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to this amount. Hence, complaint of the complainants is allowed with costs to this extent and respondents are directed:-
1. To pay Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.
It is made clear that the shares of the minor children should be deposited in the Nationalized Bank and the same will be released on the age attaining their majority.
5. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Forum, the complainants have come up in appeal.
6. The age of the deceased at the time of his death was 36 years and that of his widow was 30 years. She has to live as a widow throughout her life and will miss the sense of security as also the consortium. Taking this and all other relevant circumstances into consideration like the age of the deceased etc it will be just and fair to enhance the compensation from Rs.3 lac to Rs.5 lac and is ordered accordingly.
7. In view of above, compensation awarded by the District Forum is modified to the extent that the appellants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Interest at the rate of 9% shall be paid on the enhanced amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
8. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum is modified to the extent indicated above.
Announced:
13.03.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL While apportioning the amount of award amongst the appellants, due regard has to be given that deceased was in the prime youth of his age and the dependency to the appellants and also keeping in view the cost of living in these days, we feel that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- ordered to be paid as compensation is on the lower side.
Therefore, we enhance the same to Rs.5,00,000/-. Rest of the order is maintained. The impugned order is modified as indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.
F.A.O No.879 of 2013 Present: Sh. Ajay Chhikara, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents.
Delay of 140 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Announced:
13.03.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL