- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 2.1.2008 passed by the District Forum, Nanital. partly allowing the consumer complaint No. 136 of 2005 and directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 4,00,000 and Rs. 2,000 towards litigation expenses within a month from the date of the order, failing which the opposite parties shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p. a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Smt. Gagandeep Kaur's husband Sh. Saravjeet Singh got electrocuted on 5.5.2005 when he went to switch off the main switch of the electric connection of his house. According to the complainant, in the night of 4.5.5.2005 at about 1.30 a.m., the main switch fans, television connection, etc. started sparking. Her husband went to switch off the main switch so that the house could be saved from catching fire. In this attempt, he got electrocuted. The complainant in an attempt to save the life of her husband, also got electrocuted. Both of them were taken to the Base Hospital, Haldwani, where her husband were declared dead by the doctors. However, the doctors saved her life. The incident was investigated by the Government's Electric Inspector, who concluded that the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, its Executive Engineer and Deputy General Manager, opposite parties in the consumer complaint, were responsible for the said incident as the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited and its officials had failed to ensure the faultless installation and maintenance of the electric supply system and have violated the rules made therefore. On filing a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital, the District Forum partly allowed the same vide its order dated 2.1.2008 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of the complainant -respondent. All the arguments advanced by the appellants in their defence are very ridiculous. The first and foremost among them is that the electricity is a highly technical matter, it cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora. The appellants while advancing this argument, forgot that Consumer Fora are also a part of this country's judicial system and, thus, this argument amounts to supremacy of the appellants even above the country's judicial system. It has also been argued that if a consumer has a grievance, then the provisions of the Electricity Act can provide the relief, but the department being technical, none else can interfere in the matter. The Electrical Inspector of the Government of LTttarakhand has stated in very clear and unvague terms in the report (Paper Nos. 36 to 38) that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the electricity department, but the appellants hold themselves supreme in technical matters and have said that the report of the Electrical Inspector is neither final, nor binding on them and the said report has no evidentiary value under law. Instead, the appellants have alleged that the house owner, the father -in -law of the complainant, in whose name the electrical connection was sanctioned was at fault and due to his negligence, the said incident had occurred. According to the appellants, earthing was not done in the house which resulted in the electrocution of Sh. Saravjeet Singh. This stand taken by the appellants cannot help them because it was their duty to ensure before sanctioning the connection that the wiring inside the house had been done properly with proper earthing. We understand that a certificate from a registered electrician is taken by the department before sanctioning the connection. Further, if the appellants were innocent and it was the sole fault of the consumer, then why the electricity department had given a compensation of Rs. 35,000 to the complainant vide its order dated -3.9.2005 (Paper No.39). This order itself shows that the complainant's husband had died due to the negligence made by the electricit;