ORDER (ORAL)

          The present revision petition has arisen out the order dated 10.01.2018 in Appeal No. 113/2016 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.05.2016 of the District Forum.

2.       At the outset it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions that in the present revision petition he is only challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the State Commission.  It is submitted that the State Commission has erred in taking minimum salary @ Rs.5122/- of the deceased and applying the multiplier, the method available for calculating the compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.  It is submitted that the said principle cannot be applied while calculating the compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

On these contentions it is submitted that impugned order suffers from illegality and is liable to set aside.

3.       We have heard the arguments and have perused the record. 

4.       There is concurrent finding of the fact that deceased had died due to electric current at the time when he was working in his field.  He came in touch of the live current of wire installed by the petitioner.  Both the Fora below have concluded that the petitioner had not installed the wires properly and due to that reason, the deceased came into contact with those cables and lost his life.  It has been held that the petitioner had not acted as per the guidelines provided for installing the cable wires.  The jurisdiction of this Commission under 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is limited.  It cannot re-appreciate and re-assess evidences and substitute its own findings of the facts to that of the Fora below.  It can only intervene when it is shown that there is any illegality in the order or that there is a miscarriage of justice.  In the present case the concurrent finding of the Fora below that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the petitioner, is based on the facts proved on record, cannot be disturbed unless it is shown that finding is not based on any evidence.  The learned counsel in the present revision petition has not challenged these findings of facts before us. 

6.       The only contention is that Fora below has wrongly assessed the compensation applying the principles of calculation of compensation under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.  In the case of Raman vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2014) 15 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that where the person dies due to electrocution, the compensation should be fair and proper and that principles laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 should be the guiding principle of multiplier method for the said purpose.  The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to put-forth any other method for calculating compensation. 

7.       The method applied by the Fora below while calculating the compensation and damages to which the deceased was entitled, is just and proper.  We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.  The present revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.