SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Ori) 59

High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT, S. C. DATTA
KIRANBALA DANDAPAT - Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY, GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. - Respondent
D. J. C.  14832  Of  1996
Decided On : 02/23/1998

Advocates Appeared:
B.N.RATH, BANOJ PATNAIK, L.MOHANTY, M.K.PANDA, PRASAJIT SINHA, S.K.PATNAIK

A statutory body like the Corporation should not stand on technicalities, when the poor dependants of a electrocution victims are the claimants.

Headnote:

ELECTROcution - COMPENSATION - NEGLIGENCE - ACT OF GOD - DELAYED APPROACH - LIMITATION - LACHES - STATUTORY BODY - TECHNICALITIES - FIXED DEPOSIT - WITHDRAWAL - IDENTIFICATION - PAYMENT - WRIT APPLICATION - ALLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

Krushna Chandra Dandapat died due to electrocution on 21-10-1993. His widow and minor children filed a writ application for compensation from the Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Corporation). The Corporation denied negligence and claimed the incident was an act of God. The petitioners argued that the Corporation was negligent and liable for compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied and the Corporation was liable for negligence. The court also held that the plea of act of God was not applicable as the incident could have been foreseen and prevented. The court further held that the delay in filing the writ application was not due to laches and the Corporation should not stand on technicalities.

Issues: 1. Whether the Corporation was negligent? 2. Whether the incident was an act of God? 3. Whether the delay in filing the writ application was due to laches?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied and the Corporation was liable for negligence. The court reasoned that the incident was such that it would not have happened in the ordinary course of things if the Corporation had used proper care. 2. The court held that the plea of act of God was not applicable as the incident could have been foreseen and prevented. The court reasoned that the Corporation had experience of heavy downpours of rain and consequent extraordinary floods in the area and should have taken steps to prevent damage. 3. The court held that the delay in filing the writ application was not due to laches. The court reasoned that the petitioners were a young widow and four fatherless children and that the Corporation should not stand on technicalities.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application and directed the Corporation to pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the petitioners. The court directed that Rs. 45,000/- be kept in a fixed deposit for five years and the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- be released to the petitioners.

PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) ONE Krushna Chandra Dandapat (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') lost his life on account of electrocution on 21-10-1993. His widow and minor children have filed this writ application for a direction to the Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation') to compensate them.

( 2 ) CASE of the petitioners sans unnecessary details is as follows :on 21-10-1993, at about 6 a. m. the deceased had gone to his agricultural field to irrigate the land. A live high voltage 11k. V. electric wire was lying on the field being disconnected from the pole. When the deceased came in contact with it, he sustained burn injuries and became senseless. Immediately he was taken to Derabis P. H. C. but his condition became serious. He was shifted to Kendrapara Hospital where he breathed his last. The matter was reported at Kendrapara Police Station basing upon which U. B. Case No. 55 dated 21-10-1993 was registered. Enquiry was conducted and it was clearly indicated that the death was due to electrocution. Compensation was claimed from the Corporation, but no heed was paid.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the Corporation it has been stated that there was no negligence involved. The Electrical Inspector submitted a report indicating that all possible steps were taken and suggested remedial measures, and therefore, no compensation was payable, and in any event the claim was belated. The death took place on 21-10-1993 and the writ application was filed on 20-12-1995. However, it is accepted that a claim was made before the Corporation on 6-12-1996, but the petition was without signature. The claim was lodged after the period of three years which is the prescribed period for claiming compensation.

( 4 ) A plea is raised that incident can be termed as an act of God and therefore, no compensation is payable. Preventive measures suggested to be taken may provide safety in future. Those cannot be pressed into service to deny liability of the Corporation. The term 'compensation' as stated in the Oxford Dictionary, signifies that which is given in recompence in equivalent rendered. 'damages' on other hand constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss of injury sustained the value estimated in money, or something lost or withheld. The term 'compensation' etymologically suggests the image of balancing one thing against another; its primary signification is equivalents, and the secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent. Pecuniary damages are to be valued on the basis of 'full compensation'. That concept was first stated by Lord Blackborn in Livingstone v. Rawgarda Coel Co. (1980) AC 25.

( 5 ) THE 'rule of Law' requires that the wrongs should not remain unredressed. All the individuals or persons committing wrongs should be liable in an action for damages for breach of civil law or for criminal punishment. Law of torts is founded on the principle that every injury must have a remedy. 'compensation' means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given or to make amends for loss, recompense, remuneration or pay; it need not, therefore, necessarily be in terms of money, because law may specify principles on which and manner in which compensation is to be determined as given. Compensation is an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person damified may receive equal value for his loss or be made whole in respect of his injury; something given or obtained as equivalent; rendering of equivalent in value or amount an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing received recompense for whole injury suffered, remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage or every description. The expression 'compensat









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top