IMPORTANT POINT
The state is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees, and dependents of a deceased individual have a right to compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution when such negligence results in death.

JUDGMENT :

(Javed Iqbal Wani, J.) :

1. Petitioners, in the instant filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, implore for the following relief:

"In view of the submissions made hereinabove and those to be urged at the time of hearing, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 20.00 lacs as compensation to the petitioners by issuing a writ."

2. The relief aforesaid is being sought on the facts detailed out in the petition as under:

(I) The husband of petitioner No. 1, namely, Shakeel Ahmad, was working as a daily wager in the Power Development Department, Jammu and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3300/- per month. Besides this, the husband of petitioner No. 1 was a farmer by profession wherefrom he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is contended that the said deceased Shakeel Ahmad, was only bread earner of the petitioners.

(II) It is being stated that on 27.01.2006, the husband of petitioner No. 1, Shakeel Ahmad, joined respondent No. 3, namely, Vijay Kumar, Lineman, to perform his duties and proceeded to Village Palli Tehsil & District Jammu, where electric transformer had gone out of order.

(III) It is being next stated that on the instructions of respondent No. 3, the deceased removed the bolts of the transformer, as a result of which, he was electrocuted leading to his death on spot as the electric supply had not been got disconnected by respondent No. 3. The post-mortem conducted revealed the cause of death of the deceased as cardiac arrest following high voltage electric shock.

(IV) It is being contended that the death of the deceased was result of negligent act of the respondent No. 3, a Government employee working under respondent No. 1 and 2. An FIR bearing No. 7 of 2006 for offence under Section 304-A RPC at Police Station, Jhajjar Kotli, Jammu, is also stated to have been registered in respect of the incident.

3. Per contra, respondents have filed objections to the writ petition, wherein the contentions raised by the petitioners are being controverted and resisted. It is being contended that as reported by Executive Engineer, Inspection Division, Jammu, the husband of petitioner No. 1, late Shakeel Ahmad helped the Lineman Sh. Vijay Kumar(respondent No. 3)on 27.01.2006 in carrying the chain block to 100 KVA Sub Station at Palli. The chain block was unloaded from the scooter and the Lineman (respondent No. 3) proceeded to get the operating rod kept in a nearby house and that while the respondent No. 3 had gone hardly a little distance, he heard a loud noise.

4. It is being stated that the respondent No.3 immediately turned back and found that the deceased to have fallen on ground and bleeding from the head and by the time local people were called, the victim had succumbed. The post-mortem report is admitted to have been issued by the J&K Health Department indicating the cause of death heart failure due to electrocution coupled with injury and intra-cerebellum bleeding. It is being contended that the services of the deceased were being utilized by the Lineman (respondent No. 3) only for the carriage of heavy T&P and was not assigned any job of repair to the electrical system.

5. It is further contended that the fiddling of victim with live wire was on his own and not under the instructions of any employee, as such the department was not at fault. It is being further contended that the deceased never worked in the respondent department in any capacity either as a casual labourer or daily wager. It is further stated that, as reported by the team of officer of the Inspection Division, the deceased had never been instructed or directed to carry out any work and it is unknown as to how victim had come in contact with the live wire and met with electrocution turning down the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable in law and petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file.

7. The moot point that beg