NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Chairman-Cum M.D., Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. & 5 Ors. —Appellants
Versus
T. Rajeswari & 4 Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 714 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 11/09/2012 in Complaint No. CC/20/2011 of the State Commission Orissa)
Decided on 19.8.2020

IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant can file complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986 instead of taking action under Fatal Accidents Act if complainant can come under the category of consumer under provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 3 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 100]—Electricity—Death due to electrocution—Compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- together with costs of Rs.5,000/- awarded by State Commission—Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for an alternate remedy—Complainant can file complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986 instead of taking action under Fatal Accidents Act if complainant can come under the category of consumer under provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986—State Commission has relied upon documentary as well as oral evidence by third parties in assessing income of deceased—Opposite parties have not examined third parties who have given their evidence in favour of complainants—Onus was on opposite parties to have rebutted evidence given by third parties either by way of documentary evidence or by way of oral evidence of some other parties—There is no ground to interfere with finding of State Commission in respect of income arrived at for calculating compensation—Complainants have stated in complaint age of deceased at the time of accident to be 44 years and State Commission has also relied on some other evidence to take age of deceased as 44 years—Appeal dismissed.

Held: Moreover, Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides for an alternate remedy and therefore a complainant can file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 instead of taking action under the Fatal Accidents Act if the complainant can come under the category of consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

From the above, it is clear that the State Commission has relied upon the documentary as well as oral evidence by third parties in assessing the income of the deceased. The opposite parties have not examined the third parties who have given their evidence in favor of the complainants. Onus was on the opposite parties to have rebutted the evidence given by the third parties either by way of documentary evidence or by way of oral evidence of some other parties. Thus, there is no ground to interfere with the finding of the State Commission in respect of the income arrived at for calculating the compensation. Another objection has been raised in respect of the age of the deceased. The State Commission has taken the age of the deceased to be 44 years whereas, the contention of the appellants is that as par the documents submitted by the complainants themselves like the FIR and the complaint given to the SHO as well as the inquest report, the age of the deceased was 46 years at the time of accident. Thus, the compensation should have been calculated on the basis of this age. It is seen from the record that the appellants have not filed certified copies of the documents on which they wanted to rely for the proof of age of the deceased. Thus, the assertion of the opposite parties cannot be accepted without any proof. The complainants have stated in the complaint the age of the deceased at the time of accident to be 44 years and the State Commission has also relied on some other evidence to take the age of the deceased as 44 years. State Commission has also mentioned FIR as a document on which the age of 44 years has been ascertained. In these circumstances, I do not see any reason to find fault with the finding of the State Commission particularly in the absence of any proof filed by the appellants before this Commission. Hence, I do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the age of the deceased should have been considered to be 46 years.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly the FA No. 714 of 2012 is dismissed. 50% of the awarded amount by the State Commission was deposited by the appellants with this Commission as mentioned in the order dated 10th January 2013 and 4th July 2013. This amount be released to the complainants by the Registry of this Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of this order and the remaining amount should be paid by the appellants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. (Paras 14, 16 and 17)

Result: Appeal dismissed.