NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/483/2006

MURJIBHAI LALJI CHAWDA AND ANR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

MR. P.B. SURESH

08 Jul 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
APPEAL NO. 483 OF 2006
 
(Against the Order dated 22/06/2006 in Complaint No. 169/2002 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MURJIBHAI LALJI CHAWDA AND ANR
BAJRANG CHOWK, SATHWARA VAS,
NEW SUNDERPURI,
GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH, GUJARAT
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD
THROUGHTHEDEPUTY DIRECTOR
GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH
GUJARAT
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. R. KINGONKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Appellant :
Mr. K.P. Toms, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. David A, AdvocateFor Mr. R.K. Mehta, Advocate

Dated : 08 Jul 2011
ORDER

This appeal arises out of judgement and order rendered by Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short he State Commission, in complaint case No. 169 / 2002. By the impugned judgement, the complaint filed by the appellants came to be dismissed. 2. The appellants are the original complainants. They are the husband and wife inter se and are parents of four deceased minor girls, namely, Rajshree aged about 10 years, Pooja aged about 8 years, Asha aged about 5 years and Khushboo aged about 3 years. The appellants own a house situated in Bajarang Chowk at Gandhidham Kutch. The four ill-fated minor girls, named above, used to reside with the appellants. The appellants had taken electricity connection no. 38104 / 03188 /0 for supply of electricity to their residential house. The respondent Gujarat Electricity Board (in short .E.B. is admittedly, the service provider. It is an admitted fact that on 7.01.2002 the four minor daughters of the appellants were sleeping in one room of the house. There is no dispute about the fact that somewhere between 4 to 5 a.m., in the early hours of the morning, a bizarre incident occurred in that room. All the four minor daughters of the appellants sustained extensive burn injuries during the course of the incident. They were almost charred to death. Out of them, only one minor daughter, namely, Pooja had survived for about a couple of days. It appears that her dying declaration was recorded wherein she stated that the house was caught by fire due to short-circuit, therefore, she was injured. The incident was reported to the Police by the appellant no. 1. Thereafter, Panchnama of the place of occurrence was drawn by the concerned police. The dead bodies of the ill-fated minor girls were subjected to post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination revealed that the death is occurred due to 100% burn of third degree. The appellants filed complaint seeking recovery of Rs.19,99,999/- as compensation and damages. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants is that the incident of fire was result of electrical short-circuit in the room of the house in which the minor daughters were sleeping during the relevant morning. The electricity supply was fluctuating due to technical problem in the transformer. The transformer and the electricity meter was not properly maintained by the respondent (GEB). The respondent failed to take proper care and adopt safety measures to avoid untoward incident. The minor daughters lost their lives due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent. The loss of life of their four minor daughters had caused great distress and loss of consortium to them. The general compensation of Rs.5 lakh per death of each of the daughters was, therefore, claimed by them. 4. The respondent (GEB) denied truth in the material averments made in the complaint. The respondent submitted that the complainants are not the consumers. The respondent further submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation. The respondent alleged that the State Commission had no jurisdiction in view of the complexity of the issues involved in the matter and, therefore, the complainants shall have to approach the Civil Court. The respondent categorically denied that the accident occurred as a result of short-circuit or any deficiency in the service of the electricity supply. The respondent submitted that the electricity supply was in regular order and the inspection of the premises could not show any negligence in maintaining of the electricity supply through the meter provided to the house of the appellants. The respondent further alleged that limited fire in the middle room of the house could not have occurred due to negligence in supply of the electricity through the same meter. The respondent, therefore, sought dismissal of the complaint. 5. The parties filed affidavits and certain documents. The appellant no. 1 was examined as a witness. The respondent examined Shri Vinodbhai Kanjibhai Maheswari, Deputy Engineer. The State Commission recorded the finding to the fact that the four minor daughters of the complainants were involved in the accident of fire and were burnt to death as a result thereof. The State Commission, however, held that the appellants failed to establish any negligence on the part of the respondent. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the appellants could not prove the allegation about electrical short-circuit as the cause of alleged fire in the middle room of their house. In keeping with such findings the complaint was dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the relevant documents, including photographs, which were placed on record and have not been disputed by the respondent. The core issue involved in the appeal is : hether the alleged incident is the result of negligence committed by the respondent, particularly, while maintaining service wire of the meter provided to the residential house of the appellant? 7. The impugned judgement does not show any reference to the photographs of the electricity meter, found at the place of the incident. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants categorically stated in the complaint that dying declaration of Pooja was recorded while she was under medical treatment in Gundiya Hospital at Rajkot. It is an admitted fact that though she sustained burn injuries on 7.01.2002, yet she was alive till 9.01.2002. The other three daughters of the appellants met with instantaneous death due to the 100% burn injuries. The dying declaration of minor Pooja would show that she attributed the cause of fire to the short-circuit in the electricity supply. The State Commission did not give any reason as to why the dying declaration of Pooja could be discarded. In fact, Pooja was one of the victims and had been struggling with death for at least couple of days after the incident. She had no reason to speak lie. It appears that the appellant no. 1 lodged a report with the Police without loss of time. The relevant documents filed alongwith reply affidavit of the respondent, in the proceedings of the appeal, go to show that the occurrence panchnama was drawn in the same morning by Junior Engineer, Shri V.D. Mehta. The recitals of that panchnama shows that the third wire of R-face was found burnt. The electricity meter had become black due to smoke. The main switch and fuse near the electricity meter were found little black. The first room of the house was inspected and it was found that the light fittings had become little black due to smoke. It is important to mention here that the regulator of the electric fan in the second room was found in burnt condition. The Junior Engineer of the respondent (GEB) observed that he was uncertain to give finding as to how the fire had broken out. It is amply clear, therefore, that the Junior Engineer of the GEB did not rule out possibility of short circuit in the room no. 2 of the house. The police sought assistance of the GEB Engineer, Gandhidham vide letter dated 07.01.2002 (Annex. R-2). The Dy. Engineer of GEB did not cooperate. He informed vide letter dated 08.01.2002 (Annex. R-3) that the exact cause of fire could be certified by the Government appointed Electrical Inspector, Mehsana. The PSI requested Dy. Engineer to call upon the Electrical Inspector, Mehsana for investigating the case. By letter dated 05.09.2002 (Annex. R-5), the Electrical Inspector informed Dy. Engineer of G.E.B. that there was no provision to investigate or decide the issue about cause of occurrence in cases of fire as per the Indian Electricity Act, 1956. In other words, the Electrical Inspector also refused to give any specific opinion and investigate the matter. 8. True, the appellants could not establish that there was fluctuation in the electricity supply from the pole, which was used for supply of electricity to other houses in the vicinity. It is also true that the appellants failed to establish the fact that there was any defect in the transformer or the main electricity meter. Still, however, the very fact that the photographs of the place of occurrence gave indication of the damage caused to the electricity meter and the electricity line coupled with the dying declaration of minor Pooja and the occurrence panchnama should have been duly appreciated by the State Commission. The appellants were not required to prove negligence of the respondent by adducing technical evidence in order to prove their case up to the hilt. It was sufficient for the appellants to adduce the quantum of evidence which could duly probablise their case. The very fact that the incident occurred in the early morning and the four minor daughters of the appellants were practically charred to death and there was evidence to show that the fire was result of faulty electrical supply will show that the incident was result of negligence in maintenance of the electricity supply wire and the meter. It is an admitted fact that the appellants had applied for restoration of the electricity supply and thereafter the same was restored by changing the electricity meter. Had there been no defect in the electricity meter there was no question of restoration of the electricity supply by changing of the meter. These aspects are completely lost sight of by the State Commission. Moreover, the Dy. Engineer and the Electrical Inspector did not give cooperation during course of investigation by the Police is also the relevant fact. Their conduct is not properly appreciated by the State Commission. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the evidence placed on record, we are of the opinion that the appellants duly proved the allegation of negligence on part of the respondent which resulted into death of their four minor daughters. 9. So far as the question of compensation is concerned, it may be stated that the minor daughters were of tender age. The appellants have not produced any evidence about educational prospects of the deceased minor daughters. There is no evidence tendered by the appellants to prove that the minor daughters were brilliant and would have earned a sizeable income after some years. What they have alleged in the complaint is that they had lost the four daughters and, therefore, were entitled to recover the compensation. Since the compensation is sought chiefly on the ground of loss of lives and loss of consortium, it will be proper to hold that the appellants are entitled to get general compensation of Rs.2.5 lakh for loss of each of the minor daughter. Thus, they are entitled to recover compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 10. In the result, we allow the appeal. The impugned judgement and order is set aside. The complaint is partly allowed. The respondent shall pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the appellants alongwith cost of Rs.10,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order. In case the amount of compensation is not paid within four weeks, the appellants will be entitled to recover the said amount alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realisation. The respondent shall bear its own cost throughout.

 
......................J
V. R. KINGONKAR
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.