Important point
High Court is not justified in awarding compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when there were disputed questions of fact to be decided.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Article 226—Compensation claim—Deaths due to electrocution—Fact of illegal hooking—Liability of appellant Corporation—A co-villager of the deceased had taken power supply to his L.I. point—Some other villagers of the village had illegally taken power supply without the knowledge of GRIDCO Authorities by use of hook from the L.I. point to their houses by means of an uninsulated G.I. wire—Unauthorised G.I. wire through which the line was illegally taken got disconnected and fell on the ground—Father of respondent, at that time was coming with his bullock—Bullock came in contact with the live G.I. wire and got electrocuted—Father of respondent when tried to rescue the bullock got electrocuted—His wife came to his rescue and hearing her cries her daughter while trying to detach her parents also was electrocuted—Cause of death was mentioned to be due to illegal electric connection taken through hook—Respondent filed a writ petition claiming compensation for the death of deceased—High Court directed appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent—Appellants had disputed negligence attributed to it—No finding has been recorded by the High Court that GRIDCO was in any way negligent in performance of its duty—Whether awarding of compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 can be justified—(No)—Impugned judgments deserve to be set aside—However, in view of long lapse of time appellants will not recover the amounts already paid.
       Held : In the present case, the appellants had disputed the negligence attributed to it and no finding has been recorded by the High Court that the GRIDCO was in any way negligent in the performance of its duty. The present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others (supra). The High Court has also erred in awarding compensation in Civil Appeal No. ....... of 2005 @ SLP (C) No. 9788 of 1998]. The subsequent suit or writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the dismissal of the suit. The writ petition was filed after a lapse of 10 years. No reasons have been given for such an inordinate delay. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition after a lapse of 10 years. In such a case, awarding of compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be justified. (Para 9)
       In Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and others (supra) with which case these appeals were listed for hearing but could not be heard for want of service this Court took the view that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and were not fit cases for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was held that actions in tort and negligence were required to be established initially by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of electric transmission line belonging to the appellant had snapped and the deceased had come into contact with it and died by itself was not sufficient for awarding compensation. The Court was required to examine as to whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence on the part of the appellants, as a result of which the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the defence raised and the denial by the appellants in each of the cases, the appellants deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission line and yet the wires had snapped because of the circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties. Such disputed questions of fact could not be decided in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 6)
       (ii) Constitution of India—Article 226—Compensation claim—Death due to electrocution—One night, due to heavy storm and rain, one L.T. Conductor snapped despite the fact that appellant had taken adequate steps to maintain the supply line properly—Deceased while moving in the morning came in contact with the snapped electric wire and became unconscious and then died—Respondent filed compensation claim against appellants—Suit was dismissed—Writ petition filed after a delay of 10 years—High Court awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- ignoring the fact that suit filed on same cause of action had already been dismissed—Whether impugned judgment of the High Court is sustainable—(No). (Paras 4 and 6)
       (iii) Constitution of India—Article 226—Compensation claim—Death due to electrocution—At about 12.00 noon while respondent’s husband was returning from the polling station, a live electric wire suddenly snapped and fell on him as a result of which he received severe electric burn injuries and lost his senses and then died—Respondent filed writ petition claiming compensation—High Court allowed writ petition directing appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation to respondent—Writ petition involved disputed questions of fact as appellants denied their negligence—Whether impugned judgment of the High Court is sustainable—(No). (Paras 5 and 6)

Judgment

Bhan, J.—Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5591 of 1999 & 9788 of 1998.

2. In this batch of three appeals the questionwhich arises for determination is as to whether the High Court was justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and award compensation to the respondent writ petitioners even though the appellants – who was the respondent in the writ petition – had denied the liability on the ground that the deaths had not occurred as a result of their negligence but because of the negligence of the respondent themselves or of an act of God or because of an act of some other persons. These appeals were ordered to be listed along with the case – Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others Vs. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and another, [(1999) 7 SCC 298], but were delinked as the service had not been completed on the respondents. The Bench disposed of the batch of 10 appeals and these appeals were ordered to be heard after service is complete.

3. The facts of Civil Appeal No. 1726 of 1999 arising against the order passed by the High Court of Orissa in Writ Petition bearing OJC No. 13281 of 1997 are:-

One Themba Bhim, a co-villager of the deceased had taken power supply to his L.I. point. Some other villagers of the village Khuntagaon viz. Ralbindra Oram, Fatha Oram, Gobardhan Kisan and Etwa Oram had illegally taken power supply without the knowledge of GRIDCO Authorities by use of hook from the L.I. point to their houses by means of an un-insulated G.I. wire. On 22.8.97 the unauthorised G.I. wire through which the line was illegally taken got disconnected and fell on the ground. At that time the father of the respondent Japana Oram was coming with his bullock, the bullock came in contact with the live G.I. wire and as a result thereof got electrocuted. On finding this Japana Oram tried to rescue the bullock and got electrocuted. His wife came to his rescue and hearing her cries her daughter Sabi Oram while trying to detach her parents also was electrocuted. The incident was reported to the local police by the villagers of the Khuntagaon on 23.8.97 wherein the fact of illegal hooking and death due to electrocution was admitted. The local police enquired into the matter and reported the cause and manner of death as stated above. On 23.8.97 the Junior Engineer of GRIDCO sent a telegram to the Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Orissa, for necessary action at his end. The S.D.O. Electrical Sub-Division Ujalapur on 24.8.97 also submitted report in which the cause of death was mentioned to be due to illegal electric connection taken through hook. On 16.9.97 respondent herein filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack being OJC No. 13281 of 1997 claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. Counter affidavit was filed by the appellants herein. In the Counter affidavit it was contended that death occurred were due to the negligence of the deceased themselves and the electric live wire were belonging to and maintained by the GRIDCO had not snapped and, therefore, the appellants were not liable to pay any compensation. By the impugned judgment the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent herein.

4. In Civil Appeal No. 4552 of 2005 (@ SLP (C) No. 9788 of 1998) arising from OJC No. 6290 of 1994, on the night of 10.5.84 due to heavy storm and rain, one L.T. conductor snapped. This happened despite the fact that the appellant had taken adequate steps to maintain the supply line properly. Before the storm and rain on the night of 10.5.84 the supply line was checked by the Junior Engineer and the lineman in the regular course of checking. However, before information about the snapping of the line was received by the appellants, the deceased while moving in the morning came in contact with the snapped electric line and became unconscious. He was tak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 957

Important pointHigh Court is not justified in awarding compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when there were disputed questions of fact to be decided.

Cases Referred (4)

Important point
High Court is not justified in awarding compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when there were disputed questions of fact to be decided.