The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ application for compensation for death due to electrocution is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment also emphasizes the principle of strict liability and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in the context of electrocution cases.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

Petitioners are the unfortunate parents of Madhusudan Das, who died in electrocution. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they have prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of their only son Madhusudan Das.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that on 12.7.1997 evening while their son, Madhusudan Das was driving the cattle, who were damaging the standing paddy crops, from the field by holding a lathi, the said lathi touched the electric live line of the pump house, as a result of which, he got the electric shock, fell down and became senseless. Thereafter he was shifted to headquarter Hospital, Jajpur for treatment. On the way he expired. On the very same day, the matter was reported to the Jajpur Police Station, whereafter Jajpur P.S.U.D. Case No.50/97 was registered. After registration of the case, the police took up the matter for investigation and made inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The dead body, on completion of inquest, was sent to the District Headquarter Hospital, Jajpur for autopsy. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem, submitted the report stating that the cause of death was due to electric shock. The deceased was a strong and stout person and also an educated having bright career. He was doing the cultivation work and other business and out of which, he was maintaining his family as he was the only son of the petitioners. With this factual scenario, this writ petition has been filed for compensation.

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating therein that no such documents are available about the incident dated 12.7.1997 in its office. This writ petition has been filed after a lapse of ten years of the occurrence. The opposite parties have no knowledge about the police case and postmortem report conducted on the deceased on 13.7.1997. It is further stated that the investigating officer had never examined the electrical staff of the electrical section/division, Jajpur Town. The petitioners had not filed any application regarding the alleged accidental death of their son due to electrocution before the opposite parties at the relevant time. It is further stated that on enquiry of the records in the office of the Jr.Engineer, Electrical, Panikoili, it was found that one report was submitted by Sri Chaturbhuja Dhala, Helper of the said section stating that Madhusudan Das was using hook for the purpose of supply water to his field through electric motor. At that time he received electric current severely, as a result of which, he died. It is further stated that the electric live line was in the proper height and there was no negligence on its part as the said live line was protected by engaging sufficient safe guard to avoid accident. The accident took place due to negligence of Madhusudan Das. The petitioners have not produced any documents about the income, age and medical expenditure incurred at the time of accident of the deceased.

4. Heard Mr.Swain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Acharya, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

5. Really two points arise for consideration of this Court :

(1) Whether a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for payment of compensation when death is caused due to electrocution ?

(2) Whether opposite parties can deny the liability on the ground that the death of Madhusudan Das was due to act of a third party ?

Point Nos.1 and 2.

6. An identical matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of T. Bimala v. Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack and others, 2015(I) OLR-637. It was held as follows:-

“9. The language of Article 226 of the Constitution does not admit of any limitation on the powers of the High Court for the exercise of jurisdict