|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DESPITE several court orders criticising them, electricity supply undertakings continue to display callous indifference to public safety. High tension wires are strung very low over residential colonies, posing a danger to the residents. Open, live wires are left hanging on the roadside, despite the fact that such wires can well kill. Just a couple of months ago, a retired Army officer met an untimely death in Gurgaon because of just such negligence—a broken live wire dangling by the roadside electrocuted him while he was on an evening walk. What is most unfortunate in all such cases is the absence of any remorse on the part of the power supply undertakings. Even when courts award compensation, the service providers go on appealing against the orders. Last month in one such case, while upholding the award of compensation given by a lower consumer court, the apex court also reprimanded the electricity supply undertaking for appealing against the order. The case pertained to the death of a 40-year-old labourer in UP, on account of a live power supply line falling on her. In response to a complaint filed by the husband of the victim, the district consumer disputes redressal forum awarded a compensation of Rs1.5 lakh, Rs 2,000 towards costs of litigation and Rs 2,000 towards the cost of cremation. The power supply undertaking filed an appeal against this before the state consumer disputes redressal commission, which dismissed it. The power corporation then filed a revision petition before the apex court, arguing that the wire had broken on account of someone throwing sugarcane leaves on it and, therefore, the corporation cannot be held liable. Dismissing this contention, the apex court commented that it was difficult to believe such a story. Even if it were true, the very fact that someone could throw leaves on the wire, resulting in it's snapping, meant that the wire was hanging very low, which in itself was negligence It, therefore, dismissed the petition (Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Kushi Nagar, UP, v.Budhadhan, revision petition no 3649 of 2008). In another case decided this year, the apex court had awarded compensation to the parents of a farmer who died on account of a live, high tension wire falling on him. The tragedy had occurred while he was sitting in the veranda of the gram panchayat office along with two other persons. In this case, too, the electricity company had argued vehemently that it was a strong gale that had resulted in the electric wire falling on the roof of the gram panchayat building. This was, therefore, not negligence, but an act of God, the electricity supply undertaking had argued. It had also contended that the farmer was responsible for his own death because when the live wire fell on him, he had tried to throw it off. It had also argued that the farmer was not a consumer and, therefore, the parents had no right to file the case. Dismissing all such contentions, the court had held that the Electricity Department was indeed negligent. On the basis of the postmortem report and the report of the police, the court had held that the wire had indeed fallen on the victim and he had only tried to ward off the danger by quickly throwing it away, but that had not helped. In the end, a compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh (plus an interest of 9 per cent) was awarded to the parents, who had lost the sole bread winner because of the negligence of the Electricity Department. (The CGM, NPDCL, Warangal v Sri Koppu Duddarajam, RP no 2142 of 2008, decided on July 1, 2008). In one of the earliest cases decided in 1994, too ( Sub-divisional officer, HSEB vs Prem Lal Saini , FA no 569 of 1993), the Electricity Department had tried to escape its liability by arguing that it was not negligent. In this case, the power supply line passing through the field of the consumer had caused a fire, completely destroying the standing as well as the harvested crop. Eventually, the farmer had to seek the help of the court to get compensation. Thanks to consumer courts, today victims at least get some compensation from the power supply undertakings. However, it is obvious that the orders have failed to bring about an attitudinal change in these service providers. It is time the courts made use of the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act for awarding punitive damages and imposing a stiff penalty on these undertakings. The courts should also make sure that the punitive damages given to the consumers are recovered from those officers and employees who are responsible for the negligent act. Only then will power supply undertakings pay heed to safety in public places.
|
||
|
|
||
