National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Managing Director, C.G.P.D.C.L. & 4 ... vs Raju Sidar & 3 Ors. on 30 August, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2226 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 02/03/2017 in Appeal No. 565/2016 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, C.G.P.D.C.L. & 4 ORS. BACK SIDE OF RAJKUMAR COLLEGE, DAGANIA, RAIPUR CHHATISGARH 2. CHIEF ENGINEER BILASPUR AREA C.S.P.D.C.L. TIFRA BILASPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER COMMUNICATION AND MAINTENANCE, DIVISION SAKTI, C.S.P.C.L. SAKTI DISTRICT-JANJGIR CHAMPA CHHATTISGARH 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER C.S.P.D.C.L. JAIJAIPUR, DISTRICT-JANJGIR CHAMPA CHHATTISGARH 5. JUNIOR ENGINEER C.S.P.D.C.L. JAIJAIPUR, DISTRICT-JANJGIR CHAMPA CHHATTISGARH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAJU SIDAR & 3 ORS. S/O. LT. TIWARI SIDAR, THROUGH GUARDIAN, (MOTERS BROTHER) GOPAL SIDAR, S/O. MOHIT RAM SIDAR R/O. VILLAGE AMAKONI POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL JAIJAIPUR, DISTRICT-JANJGIR CHAMPA CHHATTISGARH 2. RAJNI SIDAR D/O. LT. TIWARI SIDAR, THROUGH GUARDIAN, (MOTERS BROTHER) GOPAL SIDAR, S/O. MOHIT RAM SIDAR R/O. VILLAGE AMAKONI POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL JAIJAIPUR, JAIPUR CHHATTISGARH 3. RAJA SIDAR S/O. LT. TIWARI SIDAR, THROUGH GUARDIAN, (MOTERS BROTHER) GOPAL SIDAR, S/O. MOHIT RAM SIDAR R/O. VILLAGE AMAKONI POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL JAIJAIPUR, DISTRICT-JANJGIR CHAMPA CHHATTISGARH 4. RAJESH SIDAR S/O. LT. TIWARI SIDAR, THROUGH GUARDIAN, (MOTERS BROTHER) GOPAL SIDAR, S/O. MOHIT RAM SIDAR R/O. VILLAGE AMAKONI POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL JAIJAIPUR, DISTRICT-JANJGIR CHAMPA CHHATTISGARH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MS. RASHMI SINGH For the Respondent : MR. BRAJESH PANDEY
Dated : 30 Aug 2018 ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 02.03.2017 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal no. 565 of 2016. This appeal was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed vide order dated 04.08.2016. The grievance of the petitioner is that the State Commission has wrongly dismissed the appeal and has failed to consider the fact that the complainant/ respondent has not sent due notice of breaking of the neutral wire and also ignored the rules 5.5 and 5.6 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code - 2011 while giving the finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are that a domestic electric connection No. 1003160748 was given in the name of Nanki Noni in village Amakoni. The deceased's Hiran Bai was residing in the house of Nanki Noni (mother of deceased).
3. The complainant in his complaint had stated that the neutral wire transmitted by the petitioner to the house of Nanki Noni and that one wire of the electric meter had been broken and fell down and that caused flow of electric current in the domestic equipment of the house viz., fan, cooler/ motor etc., and that the line of house is closed and requested for its repair vide letter dated 12.06.2015. It was submitted that despite this information necessary repair was not done by the petitioner. On 15.06.2015, Hiran Bai at around 12.00 noon she was coating the house from soil and she touched her elbow with the fan of iron she came in the grip of electricity and became unconscious at the spot and she was taken to the Civil Hospital at Jaijaipur where she was declared as brought dead and a policy report was made and post mortem was also done wherein the doctors had opined that the death of the deceased was due to electric current. It was submitted that the deceased died due to the negligent act on the part of the petitioner who failed to repair the same and thus there is a deficiency in service on the part of the department. The husband and her children has alleged that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs.16,43,000/- along with litigation expenses.
4. The petitioner contested the complaint, wherein it has been stated that she died due her own negligence as she did not take any precaution. They also took the plea that their responsibility was till the supply points to the consumer and that the consumer has never informed about the breaking of the neutral wire to the department and the documents to this effect was forged and fabricated.
5. Parties lead their evidence before the District Forum and the District Forum rejected all the contentions of the petitioner. The District Forum on the issue whether the petitioner was duly informed of the breaking of the neural wire, relied on the document dated 18.05.2015 whereby the Consumer of the electricity has duly informed the department about the snapping of the neutral wire. The District Forum has observed in the order that the petitioner had never disputed the genuineness of the stamp on the document dated 18.05.2015 and also did not produce any evidence to show that the document was not genuine and manufactured one. As regards deficiency in service, the District Forum has considered Rule 5.5 and 5.6 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code - 2011 and held that it was the duty of the petitioner to get the broken wire repaired after getting the information and granted the following relief:
"The complaint of complainants is hereby allowed against the non-applicant and passed the following orders:
The non-applicants/ opposite party is hereby directed to pay amount of Rs.5,58,000/- on account of compensation due to deficiency in service to the complainant within a period of 30 days.
The non-applicant/ opposite party is hereby directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of institution of complainant viz., with effect from 04.05.2016 till final payment on the above amount.
The non-applicant/ opposite party is hereby directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within a period of one month".
6. The petitioner appealed against this order before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide its impugned order dated 01.03.2017 relying on the judgments of A P Transco and ors vs Bhimeswara Swamy and Ors, I (2015) CPJ 195 (NC) and Dakshni Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and Anr. vs Parmila Devi and Ors - II (2013) CPJ 321 (NC). The State Commission in its impugned order had clearly held that that there was a deficiency in service. In the impugned order, the information which was sent by the consumer is reproduced as below:
"The complainant sent a letter in this case on 18.05.2015, whereon, there is receipt by in-charge of appellant company and round seal is affixed and by this letter, Firtu Ram Lahre wrote a letter to the Junior Engineer C G State Power Supply Distribution Center Kotmi district Janjgir Champa, wherein, it is detailed that:
"That department has granted domestic electricity connection in the name of Firtu Ram Lahre Village Kenapali and that its service wire has been broken and fan, TV, cooler are not running in the house, and it is requested to repair it and that electricity current is being flown in the fan, cooler of house, whereby any accident may take place and immediate repair of above broken wire is required."
7. After noting down these facts the State Commission has held as under:
"The non-applicant has filed report, wherein it is clearly stated that whether District Magistrate and concerned police station have notified the incident, reply of which is given in yes thus, it is advised that all the villagers are advised for safe electricity connection and statement if Firtu Ram Lahre wherein, it is attempted to disclose that the date on which, the incident has taken place, on that day, except cooler, in any equipment, the current was not flowing in other equipment and as well as Smt Rukhamni Bai put her wet clothes on the cooler, she came into grip of current and she expired. But any affidavit of Firtu Ram Lahre has not been filed. Whatever the letter was written on 18.05.2015 by Firtu Ram Lahre, its rebuttal has not got done and in above letter, Firtu Ram Lahre has clearly stated that the wire was broken and fallen down, due to said reason the current was flown. In this situation, it shall be assumed that despite information given by Firtu Ram Lahre to Power Company, the Power Company did not repair, which, definitely, reveals deficiency in service and in this regard, the finding concluded by the District Forum in paragraph 21 of the impugned order that is totally appropriate. The learned District Forum concluded finding in paragraph 24 of the impugned order in connection with compensation that any proof or evidence has not filed to this effect that Rukhmani Bai was a skilled labour and while selling vegetable, she earns amount at the rate of Rs.150/- per day that is she earned amount at the rate of Rs.4500/- per month and even any proof regarding business was also not filed and on this ground, in paragraph 26 of the impugned order, the District Forum has assessed income of deceased for compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- day that is Rs.3000/- per month and because the age was 28 years, so while selecting multiplier of 17, passed order for awarding the compensation amount of Rs.4,08,000/- and on account of other traditional expenses and funeral proceedings of deceased, loss of companionship of complaint no.1, loss of love and affection of deceased with complainant nos.2 and 3, loss of estate, Rs.1,50,000/- thus passed order for awarding total amount of Rs.5,58,000/-. In view of the circumstances of the case, the above amount is totally appropriate and suitable amount and the District Forum has further awarded interest amount at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount, which is also appropriate.
The order passed by the District Forum is totally legitimate and there is no type of irregularity and unconstitutionality. Consequently no need to interfere.
Therefore, the order dated 30.06.2016, of the District Forum is hereby confirmed and the appeal of the appellant/non-applicant being baseless, is hereby dismissed."
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 has observed:
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."
10. The limited issue before me is whether there was any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice caused to the petitioner. There is a concurrent finding of facts that the consumer had duly informed the petitioner about the snapping of the neutral wire and the current flowing in the domestic appliances including cooler. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that the said findings are not based on the facts on record and that these are based on conjecture and surmises and these findings of facts are perverse. Even rule 5.5 cast duty upon the licensor department to do repairs and no other person is permitted to carry out any repair. Rule 5.6 states that the department shall ensure continuity of the supply of electrical energy to the consumer.
11. The revision petition is devoid of merit. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order which calls for interference. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER