Debasis Bhattacharya, Member:
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.08.2012 in Case No. 27/2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purba Medinipur. By the impugned judgment, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case on contest against the OPs and the OPs have been jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, i.d., the complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law in which case the OPs shall be liable to pay interest over the total awarded amount @8% p.a. from this day till full and final settlement.
The case of the Complainant in the petition of complaint is that he is a cultivator in his locality, where the OP No.1 use to supply electricity. OP No.2 being Sub-Agent and Operator of Cable Line used to give cable line connection to different houses through the electric poles of the OP No.1 illegally. On 19.05.2009, at about 07.00 a.m., when he was going to Milannagar Bazar by his cycle, he was electrocuted by the hanging cable line wire and G.I. wire. For such electric shock, he became unconscious and different parts of his body were burnt. He was shifted to Tamluk District Hospital and then to SSKM Hospital in Kolkata as the injury was grievous and was released on 08.07.2009. Thereafter, he was treated at Barrakcpur Disha Eye Hospital for eye, and also at the said SSKM Hospital from 09.02.2010 to 23.02.2010. He is still under treatment and already spent Rs.1.5/2 lakhs. The accident took place as the electric line was not protected properly. For such accident, he fails to lead normal life and avocation. Accordingly, the case.
On the other hand, the case of the OP No.1 in the W.V. is that the existing electric line was 11 KV HTOH line which passes through 8 meters PCC Pole support, keeping safe ground clearance. It is not all connected or involved in the wire snapping, if any. There is no negligence on its part. The accident occurred due to drawal of unauthorized and unsafe cable line over the PCC Pole support not for its negligence. So, it prayed for rejection of the complaint.
It is to be considered if the impugned judgment suffers from any anomaly so as to reverse the same in this appeal, or not.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that electrocution happened while fixing cable line by the Complainant himself, who was doing the same illegally and unauthorizedly without permission, using the pole of the Appellant and it is not a case of the electric line falling down causing electrocution. In fact, the Complainant was fixing the cable line, but not the OP No.2 himself. So, the Ld. District Forum was not right in directing the OP No.1 to pay the award of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.1 has made out that police case has been initiated in the matter and charge sheet has been filed against the OP No.2. There is no case that the Complainant got electrocuted while fixing cable line in the pole of the OP No.1. He has referred a catena of decisions, first, of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7114-15/2013, secondly, two decisions of the Karnataka State Commission, reported in 2012 (3) CPR 121 and 2009 (1) CPR 263, thirdly, three decisions of the Honble National Commission, reported in III (2013) CPJ 377 (NC), 2013 (1) CPR 510 (NC) and 2012 (3) CPR 427 (NC). He also referred to Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rule 29 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (as amended).
It has been categorically found and held by the Ld. District Forum that the Complainant came in contact of the High Tension Electric Wire of the OP No.1 which caused the accident to the Complainant, causing severe burn injuries. The liability has been fixed upon the OPs.
Considering the materials on record along with the propositions of law, there is no escape of the Appellant of its liability. There is as such no anomaly in the impugned judgment.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent No.1 and ex parte against the Respondent No.2, but without any cost. The impugned judgment is hereby affirmed.