The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'public place' as per the Notification dated 15.11.2014 and its application to determine entitlement to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved at the inaction of the Respondent Authorities in not making payment of the compensation to the Petitioner in terms with the Notification dated 15.11.2014.

2. The facts involved in the instant writ petition is that the husband of the Petitioner was engaged temporarily by the APDCL Authorities. On 13.08.2019 on instructions issued by the Divisional Engineer (Electrical), Chhaygaon, the husband of the Petitioner went to repair the damaged electric main line near the house of one Samsul Alom of Tukarpara village. While repairing the damaged electric main line, the husband of the Petitioner came in direct touch with the live electric connection and as result of which he was electrocuted and subsequently died. An FIR was lodged by the Petitioner on 01.09.2019 before the In-Charge of Goroimari Police Outpost. On receiving the said FIR, the In-Charge of Goroimari Police Outpost forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge of the Chhaygaon Police Station for registering the FIR dated 01.09.2016 as Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 818/2019 under Sections 120(B)/304 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A postmortem was also conducted on the body of the husband of the Petitioner and it was opined that the cause of death was “syncope as a result of ventricular fibrillation following antemortem electrocution”.

3. The Petitioner thereupon applied for the ex-gratia payment in terms with the Notification dated 15.11.2014 of an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on the ground that the Petitioner’s husband expired on account of an accident in a public place. The Respondent Authorities having not taken any steps for payment or disbursing the ex-gratia payment, the Petitioner have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. This Court vide an order dated 06.08.2022 issued notice. Vide the said order, the report of the Respondent No. 7 was also directed to be placed.

5. It reveals from the records that the Respondent No.7 had filed an affidavit on 23.08.2023, wherein the Electrical Accident Report dated 19.09.2022 was enclosed. From Clause 10 of the report, the cause leading to the accident has been duly mentioned. From a perusal of the said Clause 10 of the report, it reveals that the accident took place as the husband of the Petitioner tried to restore the connection of another LT feeder coming from other sub-station and thereby got electrocuted as the disconnected LT feeder was somehow charged. In Clause 11 of the said report, it was mentioned that the accident took place on account of the fault of the husband of the Petitioner. Be that as it may, it is also relevant to take note that in the meantime, the Petitioner has also received the compensation from the APDCL Authorities.

6. Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department submitted that affidavit could not be filed inspite of the directions being issued by this Court, but the question involved herein pertains to the interpretation of the term ‘public place’ for which he submits that as the accident took place in an area which was not accessible to the public and the husband of the Petitioner could only access in view of the fact that he was authorized by the APDCL Authorities, the Petitioner was not entitled to the compensation in terms with the Notification dated 15.11.2014.

7. This Court have duly heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record.

8. The claim of the Petitioner is on the basis that the husband of the Petitioner was killed due to an accident in public place which comes within the ambit of Serial No. 3 of the Notification dated 15.11.2014. The question however arises in view of the respective submissions made by the counsels for the parties is as to whether the accident which took place, which led to the unfortunate death of the husband of the Petitioner, was in public place ?

9. Taki