Compensation claims under Consumer Protection Act require jurisdictional considerations and proper appeal mechanisms; the High Court is not an appellate authority under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the ex parte order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Deogarh in C.C. No.48/2020/ Annexure-3 directing the Petitioners to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2 as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of the deceased (Petitioner’s husband) i.e. from 19.08.2017 till realization.

I. FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The facts of the case in brief, are that after death of the deceased named late Bada @ Badal Naik in electrocution, his wife/ Opposite Party No.2 filed a complaint case vide C.C. No.48/2020 in the court of the learned District Consumer Disputes Reressal Commission, Deogarh. The husband of complainant was a consumer of electricity having consumer No.414102070664.

3. On 19.08.2017 while the husband of the Petitioner was replacing the fused electric bulb in his house, he got electrocuted and fell down on the ground due to flow of high voltage electric current in the domestic service wire. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the nearby hospital for treatment and there he was declared dead by the doctors. Thereafter, this matter was reported in the Deogarh Police Station. Accordingly, U.D. case bearing No.37 dated 20.08.2017 was registered. The Doctor who conducted Postmortem of the deceased opined that the cause of death is “due to passing of high voltage electric current through the body”.

4. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2/complainant filed the above noted complaint case on the premises that the death of the deceased occurred due to gross negligence and deficiency in service by the Petitioners herein in maintaining the electrical connections and flow of voltage.

The deceased was the sole bread earner of his family. At the time of death, he was 40 years old.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that despite service of notice the Petitioners herein and the other contested parties therein did not appear before the Commission to defend the allegations leveled against them. Hence, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Deogarh treating the consumer case being a year old case, decided the same ex parte as per the provision under Rule 6 of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

6. While deciding the above noted C.C. Case, the learned Commission framed the following points for determination:-

“1. Whether the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?

2. Whether the O.Ps. has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?”

7. Thereafter, while answering on the above points the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Deogarh relying on the decision in the case of Managing Director-cum-Chairman Vrs. Mohd. Noorullha Shareef & Ors decided by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 7th March, 2018, disposed of the above noted C.C. Case with a direction to the Opposite Parties therein i.e. the Petitioners herein to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of incident to the Petitioner therein i.e. the Opposite Party No.2 herein. The Petitioners have also been directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Hence, this Writ Petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

A. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted