AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Vs. PARTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 2.9.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur in appeal No. 464 of 2011, the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner herein, against the order dated 28.1.2011 passed by the District Forum, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan in complaint case No. 429 of 2010, by which order the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant with a direction to the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 11,52,000 as compensation for the loss and injury sustained by the 11 years old boy due to the electrocution as a result of which his one leg and one hand had to be amputated. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the District Forum. Hence this petition. We have heard Mr. Aditya Madan, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Nigam but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent-complainant as the Respondent No. 1-complainant remained unrepresented on record despite due service of notice through Registered A/D Post as well as he having received a sum of Rs. 10,000 which was remitted to him to defend the present proceedings.

(2.) Mr. Madan would assail the orders passed by the Fora below primarily on the ground that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-Nigam in the matter and in all probabilities, the boy must have been electrocuted when he climbed up to the transformer bearing pole which was installed at the height of 7 1/2 feet. In any case his submission is that the compensation awarded by the Fora below is on higher side as no proof was led by the complainant to substantiate his claim of compensation to the above extent. So far as the first contention is concerned, we must reject the same because what we find from record is that certain live cables were found hanging from the poles/electric transformer at the relevant time and therefore in all probabilities the boy must have been electrocuted by coming into contact with the hanging live wires, rather than by climbing up the transformer which was installed at the height of 7 1/2 feet. Under the Indian Electricity Act and the rules framed thereunder, a supplier of electricity is under a statutory obligation to maintain all of its lines and equipments, etc., in such condition so as to ensure that no one comes into the direct contact of such lines or equipments resulting into mishaps. It is apparent that there were some hanging live wires and the transformer had not been protected against any untoward incident as has happened in the case in hand. Therefore, the petitioner cannot escape from its liability to compensate the respondent.

(3.) Now coming to the question of quantification of the compensation. This question has always been a difficult one for any Court or Tribunal to decide, particularly, in cases where the victim is not an earning hand. In the case in hand, the victim boy-Sunil Kumar was aged about 11 years at the time of the incident and was claimed to be a primary class student and therefore could not be in any earning occupation. Therefore, the question should be determined having regard to his future and kind of disability he has suffered on account of amputation of his limbs. Given the background from which the complainant and the victim came and that the victim had lost his one upper arm and one leg due to electrocution and that no cogent proof was led by the complainant in regard to the expenditure incurred by him in the treatment of the boy-Sunil Kumar towards procuring the artificial limbs, we are of the view, that it would adequately meet the ends of justice if a lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 is awarded to the victim-Sunil Kumar.