State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Power Delhi Distrip. Ltd. vs Lallan Goswami & Anr. on 17 February, 2023
FA NO./454/2014 D.O.D.:17.02.2023
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. VS LALLAN GOSWAMI AND ORS.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 07.05.2014
Date of hearing: 18.10.2022
Date of Decision: 17.02.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 454/2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.,
(Formerly NDPL)
Through its Chief Manager,
33 KV Substation Building,
Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
(Through: K. Datta and Associates)
...Appellant
VERSUS
1. MR. LALLAN GOSWAMI,
S/o Sh. Brijwasi Goswami,
R/o 123, Prem Nagar-II,
Nagloi, Delhi-110041.
(Through: Mr. R.K. Kohli, Advocate)
... For Respondent No. 1
2. MR. SANJAY PROP./PARTNER,
M/s Sanjay Cable TV Network Fun/Cinema,
Head office at:-L-114, Prem Nagar-II Nagloi, Delhi-110041.
3. M/S SANJAY CABLE TV NETWORK FUN/CINEMA,
Head office at L-114, Pren. Nagar-II,
Nagloi, Delhi-110041.
(Through Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate)
... For Respondents No. 2 & 3
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 9
FA NO./454/2014 D.O.D.:17.02.2023
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. VS LALLAN GOSWAMI AND ORS.
4. M/S GANESH ELECTRONICS (REGD.),
Through its Prop./Partner
Prem Nagar Welfare Association,
Block LMPO, Prem Nagar,
M/s Sanjay Cable TV Network Fun/Cinema,
Head office at:-L-114, Prem Nagar-II, Nagloi, Delhi-110041.
... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Akhil Hasija, counsel for the Appellant.
Respondent no. 1 in person alongwith Mr. Shekhar
Budakoti, Delhi Service Legal Aid Counsel.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Mr. Yatharth Singh & Mr. Divesh
Kumar, counsel for the Respondent no. 2 & 3.
None for the Respondent no. 4.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:
"The complainant had obtained an electricity connection for his house at House no. 123, Prem Nagar-II, Nangloi, Delhi from OP3/OP4. Since, 07/01/2001, vide RWA billing card no. 442. He has been paying electricity bills regularly as per consumption. He had also obtained a cable connection from OP1 and OP2 in the said premises on 7/5/2002 and has been paying bills continuously month by month. On 26/6/2005, at about 7.30 AM he had noticed that wires of cable were hanging in a dangerous condition for which he had already made a complaint a number of times to OP1/OP2. He had tried to arrange the cable wires and during the said arrangement had received an electric shock through the said DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 9 FA NO./454/2014 D.O.D.:17.02.2023 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. VS LALLAN GOSWAMI AND ORS.
cable wires fallen down. He had received grievous hurt in his right hand thumb, shoulder and his fingers got burnt by the said electric shock. He was removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for his treatment where he had remained admitted from 27/6/2005 to 30/6/2005. He had to follow up his treatment as an OPD patient. An operation was performed in January/February 2006 and an iron road was inserted in his right arm and shoulder. An FIR bearing no. 1121/05 dated 22.7.2005 had been registered against OP1/OP2 at PS Sultanpuri U/s 337 IPC. It is alleged by the complainant that OP1/OP2 are liable to him for the injuries received by him as despite repeated requests and demands they had not bothered to arrange the cable wires properly. He has also alleged that OP3/ OP4 are also liable as their electricity wires were not kept in a proper manner due to which electricity current had entered into and passed through on to the cable wires installed by OP1/ OP2. The complainant has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rs. Nine Lakhs Only) and has also prayed for cost of litigation."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 31.01.2014, whereby it held as under:
"OP1/ OP2 have denied that the complainant was their consumer and that he had taken a cable connection from them. They have however, not denied that they were running a cable TV network in the name of M/s Sanjay Cable Network from L-114, Prem Nagar 11, Nanglo1, Delhi.
On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record two receipts which show that he had been paying a sum of 150/- per month for the cable connection to OP1/OP2. The receipts have not been refuted to or denied by OP1/OP2. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that there is enough evidence on record to hold that the complainant had obtained a cable connection from OP1/OP2 who DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 9 FA NO./454/2014 D.O.D.:17.02.2023 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. VS LALLAN GOSWAMI AND ORS.
were running a cable network in the area in question. The registration of an FIR in respect of the incident against OPI/OP2 is another circumstance which shows that they were supplying cable connection to the complainant. The police had not only registered the FIR against OP1/OP2, they have also filed a charge sheet after investigation had been conducted. OP1/0P2 are facing trial in the court of a Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini. There is also ample evidence on record to show that cable wires were hanging in a zig-zag manner and the complainant had tried to arrange them. In the said process. he had received an electric shock and injuries to his body. The cable wires were being put up on the electricity poles set up by OP4. It appears to us that the cable wire were setup in a manner that they had come in contact with the live wires of OP4 supplying electricity. As a result of this electric current was passing through the cable wires of OP1/OP2. The cable wires were not properly insulated.
There is evidence on record that as a result of electric shock received by the complainant when he was trying to arrange the cable wires which were hanging in a zig-zag manner, he had received injuries to his right shoulder arm thumb and fingers. The complainant was hospitalized at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and an operation had to be performed on him. The question for our consideration is as to who was responsible for the injuries received by the complainant. We have no doubt in holding that the injuries received by the complainant were due to the negligence of the cable operator who had been providing cable connection to the complainant. It was the responsibility of the cable operator to ensure that the cable wires did not come in contact with the live wires and no electric current may pass through the cable wires. Apparently, OP1 /Op2 had failed to take the safety measures expected of them. OP4 is the company which had set up electricity poles and is engaged in the supply of electricity in the area. The cable wires were put up by OP1/OP2 on the electricity poles of OP4. OP4 was , therefore, vicariously, DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 9 FA NO./454/2014 D.O.D.:17.02.2023 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. VS LALLAN GOSWAMI AND ORS.
liable as the live wires set up by it had come in contact with the cable wires as a result of which electricity current had flowed through the cable wires.
We are, however, of the considered opinion that (OP3 who was merely a contractor through whom electricity supply was being given to the complainant cannot be held responsible as it had no role in the maintenance of electricity poles and transmission of electricity through them. Its only job was to provide electricity connection at the households, collect electric bills and pay to OP4 for the supply of electricity used through it. we, therefore fix the responsibility of the entire incident on OP1/OP2 and OP4. We hold that they were negligent and had failed to meet with the safety standards expected of them. (See N. Kunchi babu & Anr V/s A.R. Transco & Ors I (2005) CP3 778, Karnataka Electricity Board V/S Smt. Sharavva & Ors III (2002) CPJ (NC), Asa Ram V/S MCD AIR 1994 Delhi 164 and Kumari Alka V/s of India AIR 1993 Delhi 267).
The next question for our consideration as to what should be the amount of compensation payable to the complainant. The complainant has placed on record a certificate of permanent disability issued by Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. Delhi. It shows that he had received permanent disability in relation of his right upper limb which has been calculated at 40%. The complainant had claimed that he was earning a sum of 10,000/- per month at the time he had received injuries in question. He has, however, failed to place any cogent evidence regarding his monthly income. The complainant has also not given the total expenses incurred on his treatment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant ought to be compensated to the tune of ₹4,00,000/- out of which a sum of ₹2,00,000/- shall be paid by OP1/OP2 and the balance of 2,00,000/- shall be paid by OP4. A sum of ₹10,000/- shall also be paid to the complainant on account DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 9 FA NO./454/2014 D.O.D.:17.02.2023 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. VS LALLAN GOSWAMI AND ORS.
of cost of litigation to be shared equally by OP1/OP2 on the one hand and by OP4 on the other hand.
The above amount shall be paid by the OPs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OPs fails to comply with the order within 30 days. The complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protect Act."
3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgement, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission has erred in establishing deficiency of service on the part of Appellant and failed to appreciate that the Appellant cannot be held liable for the injuries suffered by Respondent No. 1. The Appellant further contended that the District Commission erroneously relied upon the oral submissions made by the Respondent no. 1 without appreciating the evidence on record. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment of the District Commission.
4. Notice of the present Appeal was issued to the Respondents and were directed to file the reply to the present Appeal. The Reply has been filed by the Respondent no. 1/Complainant interalia raised a specific objection regarding the maintainability of the present Appeal on the ground that present appeal is barred by limitation as it is filed beyond the stipulated period of limitation. Further, the Respondent no. 1 denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that the injuries suffered by the Respondent No. 1 was due to the fault of the Appellant. On the other hand, the Respondent no. 2 & 3, vide order dated 02.08.2016, submitted that they does not wish to file the reply to present Appeal as they have DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 9 FA NO./454/2014 D.O.D.:17.02.2023 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. VS LALLAN GOSWAMI AND ORS.
challenged the impugned order vide First Appeal no. 362 of 2014 and the same may be taken on record as the reply to the present Appeal. Further, the notice was issued to the Respondent no. 4 by way of publication in 'The Statesman' newspaper dated 29.09.2017, but he failed to appear before this Commission, therefore, the Respondent no. 4 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 06.11.2017.
5. Even though the Appellant has raised specific contention regarding the maintainability of the present Appeal, but we deem it appropriate to first adjudicate upon the issue raised by the Respondent no. 1/Complainant i.e. whether the present appeal is barred by limitation. Since it goes to the root of the case and may also render the present order illegal if not adjudicated primarily.
6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides as under:
"Section 15- Appeal:
Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period: Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 9 FA NO./454/2014 D.O.D.:17.02.2023 TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. VS LALLAN GOSWAMI AND ORS.
deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less."
7. Perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an impugned judgment should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of such impugned judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 31.01.2014 and the present appeal was filed on 07.05.2014 i.e. with a delay of approximately 65 days.
8. Further, in order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated period. However, no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Appellant till date in order to satisfy this Commission on the ground of delay in filing the present appeal.
9. Also, it is to be noted that the said fact of delay was not explained by the Appellant in his Appeal and came into light when the ground of limitation was taken by the Respondent no. 1 in its Reply to the present Appeal.
10. In totality, we are of the view that the present Appeal, being filed almost after 65 days of the expiry of the Limitation Period as prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, the Appellant failed to file a proper application to condone the delay. Therefore, without any application for Condonation of Delay, the present appeal is hopelessly barred in regard to the statutory limitation period and cannot be entertained by this Commission.
11. From the aforesaid discussion, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no orders as to costs. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 9 FA NO./454/2014 D.O.D.:17.02.2023
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. VS LALLAN GOSWAMI AND ORS.
12. Before parting with the judgment, we deem it necessary to state that we have confined ourselves to the issue of limitation only and nothing herein construed shall be deemed to be a comment on the merits of the case.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
17.02.2023 DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 9