Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 984
Dr. RAVI RANJAN, J.
(1.8.2012)
C.W.J.C. No. 15673 of 2006
Mostt. Jeenat Khatoon : Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Bihar & Ors. : Respondents
For the Petitioners: M/s Bhola Prasad, Swapnil Kumar Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh.
Headnote:Electricity Act, 2003–Section 161 (2)–Petitioner seeking compensation for the death of her husband by electrocution–Respondents raising objection of want of notice u/s 161(2) of the Act–Non-compliance of giving notice to the authority u/s 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 would not be fatal for the petitioner as he was not required to do so rather it would be the responsibility of the concerned person, as per the provision, to give such notice to such notice to the Electrical Inspector–Even if it is assumed that the petitioner has not given any information to the authority, the non-compliance would not lead to presumption that no accident had taken place–However, the writ application having been filed after serving a notice upon the respondents, the respondents, thereafter, could well have taken steps u/s 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003. (Para 7)
Constitution of India–Articles 21 & 226–Petitioner seeking compensation for the death of her husband due to electrocution–Fardbeyan, inquest report and the postmortem report establishing that the husband of the petitioner died due to electrocution–No denial by the respondents, after holding any enquiry, that live wire was not snapped and not lying in the field–In absence of such denial the death will have to accepted to have been caused due to negligence on part of respondents as they were duty bound to maintain the transmission line–Action of respondents is clearly in violation of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 8)
Constitution of India–Article 226–Judicial Review–Object of conferment of jurisdiction under Article 226 is for enforcement and not establishment of right–There is a rule of discretion and not of exclusion of jurisdiction, hence a High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review is not incompetent to decide an issue of fact, which can be determined on the basis of materials on record. (Para 9)
Constitution of India–Article 226–Deceased dying due to electrocution–Liability of paying the compensation–Respondents failed to make out any case that the electrocution of the deceased was either due to the act of God or that the snapping of wire was due to clandestine pilferage committed by any stranger–In the absence of effective denial of the occurrence andalso the manner of occurrence and in view of "Strict liability" upon the respondents as per the decision of the Appex court, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. (Para 17)
2005(6) SCC 156; AIR 1999 Orisa 137; 2004 (4) PLJR 307; AIR 1999 Delhi 291; 2004 (2) PLJR 525; 2000(4) SCC 543; 2006 (3) BBCJ V 192 2000(3) SCC 754; AIR 2002 SC 551; 2002 (2) SCC 162; 1997(1) SCC 416; CWJC 12960/2006 dt. 8.11.2011 CWJC 2436/2005 dt. 2.12.2011; 2012 (2) PLJR 771; 2005(6) SCC 156–Referred to.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and have also perused the records of this case.
2. Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the death of her husband as he was electrocuted due to the negligence on the part of the respondents.
3. Facts of the case emanating from the writ petition are summarized as under:
The deceased-husband of the petitioner, aged about 40 years, was a daily wage earner and was earning Rs. 70/- per day as agriculture labour. In addition thereto, he was also running a grocery shop from which he was earning Rs. 50/- per day. On the fateful day, i.e., 18.02.2006, when the deceased had gone to the southern side of the field of one Sushil Singh to attend natural call, the right leg of the deceased came in contact with the live wire of 11000 volt which was lying there and the body of the deceased was fumed into fire. Seeing the bizarre incident the local persons along with the Mukhia of the locality rushed to the place of occurrence but the deceased had already died. Body of the deceased was brought on the main road. Thereafter, the villagers had blocked the road demanding compensation and upon intervention and assurance given by the SDO, Bhagalpur the situation was restored to normalcy. On the fardbeyan of the son of the deceased U.D. Case No. 2/06 was registered and, thereafter, intimation regarding the occurrence was given to the concerned Magistrate under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The fardbeyan as well as the report regarding the unnatural death have been appended as Annexures 1 and 1/1, respectively. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. The postmortem report, appended as Annexure 2, reveals that the cause of death was due to electrocution by high voltage electric current. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ application.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking a stand that the relief cannot be granted to the petitioner as the department is maintaining its transmission line in effective manner and, also, no complaint was ever made by anybody that the wire of 11000 volt was snapped and was lying in the field. A stand has also been taken that the fardbeyan discloses that the right leg of the petitioner had come in contact with the wire whereas the postmortem report shows injury upon the entire body. It is also questioned as to when the place of occurrence was the field of one Sushil Singh why the inquest report was prepared on the main road of Baunsi. It has further been stated that it would be difficult to believe that a person of 40 years would not notice live wire lying on earth at 1.30 P.M., i.e., in broad day light and will come in contact with it. A stand has also been taken that unless negligence is proved on the part of the respondents, they would not be liable to pay any compensation. Further stand has been taken that in such case of accident the petitioner should have moved under section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as upon such notice of accident the Electrical Inspector has to make inquiry and submit a report regarding any accident affecting the safety of public caused by or in connection with generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed strong reliance upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SDO, GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Timudu Oram [(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 156] to impress upon this Court that in the similar circumstances, it has been held that unless negligence is established no compensation would be payable.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that the respondents are liable to maintain the transmission line for supply of the electricity and they should perform a periodical inspection which they have failed to do and as such, high voltage wire had snapped out and was lying on the ground
