The court affirmed that once the occurrence of electrocution was established, the burden shifted to the Electricity Nigam to prove non-negligence, which they failed to do.

ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Unsuccessful complainant is in appeal. Her son Sandeep had died due to electrocution on 26.09.2014. Complaint was filed before learned District Consumer Commission-Jind (In short “District Consumer Commission”) by her by averring that her son had died due to ‘electrocution’ because of negligence of DHBVN Ltd. Learned President of District Consumer Commission-Jind vide order dated 22.11.2017 allowed complaint and directed DHBVN Ltd. to pay Rs.11,22,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from date of filing of complaint and also awarded Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. However, two learned Members of learned District Consumer Commission-Jind had differed in their opinion and authored separate order, thereby dismissing the complaint on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of DHBVN Ltd. Present appeal has been preferred by complainant against dissenting opinion of two learned Members as per their separate order of even date (22.11.2017).

2. Factual matrix: As per plea; complainant’s son Sandeep-an agriculturist and also doing dairy farming, thereby earning Rs.25,000/- per month was having two acres of land. On 26.09.2014, Sandeep was irrigating his fields from tubewell situated in complainant’s land, where due to ‘electrocution in transformer’ he (Sandeep) died at spot. Incident was narrated to Police by one Shamsher Singh whose statement was recorded by police; post mortem on dead body of Sandeep was conducted at Govt. General Hospital-Jind on 26.09 2014 itself. As per plea; OP- Electricity Nigam is/was at negligence, as they did not repair transformer properly and also did not install insulator on naked electric wire of transformer which also amounts to deficiency in their service. She (complainant) being mother of deceased Sandeep moved application to OPs for compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- with interest on ground that: she is an old lady; was dependent on earnings of her deceased son, but her claim was rejected by OPs vide letter No. 1659 dated 14.10.2014. Thereafter, despite rejection of her claim; OPs again wrote letter vide its Memo No.CH-7/AC-881 dated 18.12.2014 to supply some documents/information which were duly supplied. OPs-Electricity Nigam also sought some documents vide its letters dated 13.03.2015 & 19.03.2015 wherein vague information was sought by OPs showing death of animal instead of her son which are wrong, illegal and not tenable. Basically, on these pleas; she filed complaint for issuance of directions to OPs to grant her compensation of Rs.19.00 lacs with interest @ 24% p.a. from date of incident i.e. dated 26.09.2014.

3. OPs-Electricity Nigam raised contest. In defense; OPs have pleaded that complainant has not come before the Forum with clean hands; she has no cause of action & locus standi to file complaint and it is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. It is denied that complainant is consumer of OP-Electricity Nigam vide meter account No. KB04/659 for agriculture purpose whereas said meter account is in name of Sh. Sube Singh S/o Sh. Mai Ram R/o Village: Badhana who has not paid electricity charges from 06/2014 to 11/2014. OPs further denied that due to heavy current in transformer; son of complainant died at spot as alleged. Instead as per plea; deceased was unauthorizedly tampering with transformer installed in fields of complainant. In this way, deceased himself was negligent & responsible for his death and there is no proof that heavy current was flowing in line or transformer on the day of alleged incident. As per statement of Shamsher Singh; dead body of Sandeep was lying near transformer which was at a considerable distance from tube-well & room where tube-well connection of Sube Singh is installed. Had there been any negligence on the part of any employee of Electricity Nigam, then there must have been a police case against said employee. OPs have denied about receipt of any application of complainant for compensation, as well as, any complaint with