IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation claims for electrocution are not within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat as they do not concern the supply of electricity.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the Award dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bhiwani in case No.002 of 2017. A further prayer has also been made for seeking enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner No.1 is widow of deceased Sube Singh while petitioners No.2 and 3 are minor children. Deceased Sube Singh was a farmer by vocation and was also running a milk dairy at Village Bardu Mugal, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani. On 20.11.2016, deceased Sube Singh was working in the fields of Lal Singh at around 08.30 p.m. that had been taken on lease. While he was changing the water sprinkler sets, the electricity wires of 11 KVA were hanging loose near the said land. The aluminium pipe for the sprinkler set held by deceased Sube Singh suddenly touched the sagging high voltage electricity wire and he got electrocuted and died as a result thereof. Sonu son of Ram Niwas (nephew of the deceased), Mahi Pal son of Bhana Ram, Lal Singh son of Hari Singh, Karan Singh, Laxman and Mahi Pal sons of Ram Sarup were witnesses to the abovesaid incident. They arranged for a private vehicle and shifted Sube Singh to General Hospital, Bhiwani, where the doctor declared him as ‘brought dead.’ A postmortem was conducted by the Medical Officers at General Hospital, Bhiwani on 21.11.2016 at 10.20 a.m. in the presence of the police officials as well as officials of the respondent-Distribution Licensee. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded and inquest proceedings were undertaken vide report No.7 dated 21.11.2016 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The petitioners filed a claim petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bhiwani claiming that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from the agricultural work and an additional Rs.10,000/- from the Milk Dairy. Hence, his monthly income was Rs.30,000/- and that the petitioners being the Class-I heirs are entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

3. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent-Distribution Licensee appeared before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bhiwani and contested the claim raising various objections including the maintainability of the proceedings. It was submitted that no complaint of the fatal accident was made to the Chief Electrical Inspector in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was further averred that the deceased died on account of his own negligence and that the respondent-Distribution Licensee shall thus not be liable to make any compensation.

4. Conciliation proceeding failed to fructify in any amicable resolution whereupon adjudication under Section 22-C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was undertaken by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bhiwani and a compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- alongwith the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death was awarded alongwith Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges.

5. Aggrieved thereof and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking enhancement thereof. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of ‘Kaushalya Devi Vs. State of Haryana’ passed in CWP- 14783 of 2011 decided on 01.07.2014, as per which this Court has granted compensation by applying the principles of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He thus contends that the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as per the abovesaid formula and that the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- ought to have been awarded taking into consideration the income of the deceased as well as his age and the dependency.

6. Counsel for the respondent-Distribution Licensee has, however, pointed out that a compensation of Rs.9,45,000/- has already been disbursed to the pet