PER JUSTICE J.M.MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. The complainant, Mr. Dnyaneshwar Govindrao Kirpane is an agriculturist. He is a resident of Jalgaon (Belora), Tehsil Arvi, Dist. Vardha and owns a land measuring seven acres. He has separate well with a motor pump installed on the said well to fetch water for irrigation. The said motor pump was connected with electric line. The complainant had got two sons. His elder son Mr. Satish, aged about 19 years came into contact with the electrical wire, which was already broken and consequently, he died. The complainant had not reported only with the Opposite Party and also contacted Mr. Ramesh Dhokne (lineman-cum helper) Mr. Dyneshwar Dongre, (Head lineman) & Mr. Gopalrao Ramchandra Dhamode, Helper personally to repair the same. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and passed the following order :- “1) The complaint is partly allowed. 2) The O.P.s/M.S.E.B. is hereby directed to pay Rs. Fifteen Lakhs to complainant towards consolidated compensation within Eight Weeks from the date of this order. The O.P.s/M.S.E.B. is entitled to deduct the amount already paid at the time of final disbursement. If the O.P.s/M.S.E.B. fails to comply the aforesaid order within stipulated period then O.P.s shall pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. in respect of aforesaid amount from the date of order till realization. 3) The O.P.s/M.S.E.B. is hereby directed to pay Rs.One Lakh only to complainant towards Punitive Damages within Eight Weeks from the date of this order.” 2. The Opposite Party filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and passed the following order:- “i) Appeal is partly allowed ii) The impugned order dated 14/10/2005, passed in Consumer complaint on 14/10/2005, is modified and substituted to the effect that appellant/original OP shall pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. iii) No order as to cost. iv) Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner has limited his arguments on the quantum of the compensation. He vehemently argues that without multiplier, both the Fora have come to a wrong conclusion. He contends that the case should be remanded back to the District Forum with the direction to take evidence from both the parties on the above said question. 4. We find no force in his arguments. The deceased Satish Kumar was aged about 19 years and was 12th pass. The reason given by the District Forum is quite reasonable and just. The relevant paras read as follows:- “We have perused the contents of Para.11 of complaint. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the minimum monthly income of the deceased could have been not less than Rs.5,000/- P.M. We have perused the contents of Para-4. It reveals that family members of deceased is normally having a good long life in normal course and average life span is approximately 70 yrs. The deceased died at the age of 19 yrs. only. In such circumstance it would be legitimate to hold that the deceased would have earned for approximately 40 to 45 years of remaining life span.” 5. It must be borne in mind that the deceased was a member of well to do family. They were having seven acres of land. They own their own well. They were having their own motor pump. The father of the deceased was able to bring up a family of 4 persons. The District Forum was having its heart on its right place while awarding the compensation of Rs. 16,00,000/-. 6. In a similar case titled as “U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Munesh Devi” in Civil Appeal No.5672 of 2014, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.08.2014, dismissed the SLP. In the said judgment we have placed reliance on the celebrated authority in the case of “Balram Prasad (Dr.) Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha, IV (2013) CPJ 1 (SC), wherein it was held:- “He has further rightly contended that with respect to the fundamental principle for awarding just and reasonable compensation, this Court, in Malay Kumar Gangulys case (supra), has categorically stated while remanding this case back to the National Commission that the principle for just and reasonable compensation is based on restitutio in integrum that is, the claimant must receive sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. 15. Under the circumstances, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 08.02.2000, the date of death of the complainants husband. The complainant has been deprived of the company of her husband. She is the only person to look after her minor children. She must have undergone harassment, mental agony, anguish, despair, frustration, sadness, anger, etc., all these years. Consequently, we award her compensation in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and litigation charges in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hopefully, she will continue with her service in the MTNL. The order be complied with, within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise, the compensation and litigation charges will also carry interest @ 9% p.a., till realisation.” 7. It is unfortunate that the respondent/complainant has not challenged this case before us. It appears that he is satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission. However, we dismiss the Revision Petition and impose costs for mental agony, harassment, punitive damages as well as costs of this case to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 8. Counsel for the petitioner objects that the costs be reduced. We have considered the same and reject his contention. Petitioner is directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-, with punitive costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- as ordered by the District Forum, within a period of 45 days from the receipt of this order otherwise the entire amount will carry interest @ 12% after the expiry of 45 days. | 
