IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Permanent Lok Adalat & Anr. – Respondents
CWP No. 23534 of 2016
Decided On : 25-03-2022
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Compensation - Electric Spark
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a petition for recovery of compensation due to the death of animals by burning caused by an electric spark from a pole. The Permanent Lok Adalat awarded Rs.1,50,000 in favor of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court disbelieved the petitioners' stand and found that the fire incident had taken place, supported by oral testimonies, post-mortem reports, and police investigation. The Court considered the weather conditions and the possibility of sparking from the electric pole due to hot winds.
Issues: The main contention was whether the fire incident could be presumed to be caused by the electric pole's sparking, and the validity of the compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the preponderance of probability/evidence, oral testimonies, and the weather conditions to support the occurrence of the fire incident caused by the electric spark.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioners' case and upheld the compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh. J. (Oral) - The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
2. Petitioners have assailed the order dated 02.06.2016 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Moga vide which the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No.2.
3. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 22-C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- on account of death of animals by burning and towards negligence, harassment and mental tension caused to respondent No.2.Respondent No.2 was doing dairy farming and had kept animals in a portion/wooden shed adjoining to his house. On 08.05.2015, respondent No.2 had gone to Moga for purchasing household articles and cattle feed. At about 2.30 PM, Jasbir Singh informed him telephonically that due to electric spark from a pole, remainder of wheat crop of Gurcharan Singh kept for preparing toori kept fire and also his wooden verandah. Thereafter, respondent No.2 rushed down to the place and found that seven animals were burnt due to fire. One buffalo 6 years old, one cow H&F and one female calf 3 months old were found dead due to burn injuries. One more animal also died on 11.05.2015 due to burn injuries. Three animals were treated. Respondent No.2 claimed that he had spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards treatment and the animals have not recovered so far and still there are remote chances of their recovery. The incident was widely covered by electric media as well. The occurrence of fire was witnessed by Jagir Singh, Kulwant Singh, Balwinder Singh and many other persons of the village. The police also investigated the occurrence by recording statements of different witnesses and had also prepared site plan of the place of occurrence.
4. The Permanent Lok Adalat partly accepted the claim of respondent No.2 by awarding an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.Learned counsel for the petitioners very vehemently argued that the sparking from a pole cannot travel such a distance of 170 meters to cause fire to a wooden verandah.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to report of surveyor of the Corporation, Ex.R4 to contend that the version was negated and the occurrence did not take place in the manner as suggested by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has adduced evidence by way of his own affidavit Ex.A1, detailing the incident. The version of respondent No.2 was further corroborated by way of affidavit of Balwinder Singh son of Kartar Singh, Ex.A2, affidavit of Kulwant Singh son of Gulzara Singh, Ex.A3, affidavit of Lovedeep Singh Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Salina, Ex.A4, copy of letter dated 08.05.2015 written by Malkiat Singh, ASI Police Station Sadar Moga to Senior Medical Officer, Ex.A5, copy of DDR, Ex.A6, statement of respondent No.2 to the police, Ex.A7, statement of Kulwant Singh, Ex.A8, statement of Balwinder Singh, Ex.A9 and sketch plan prepared by the police, Ex.AIO.
6. On the basis of aforesaid material, the Court disbelieved the stand of the petitioners.
7. The solitary contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the fire incident cannot be presumed as the electric pole was of less intensity and sparking cannot travelsuch a distance of 170 meters and cause fire to a wooden verandah.
8. The Permanent Lok Adalat has considered the controversy on the basis of preponderance of probability/evidence. The oral testimonies of witnesses suggested that the fire incident had taken place, death of catties has been proved by way of post-mortem report of the catties. The Police has also investigated the case.
9. Since, the occurrence had taken place in the month of May, when the weather conditions used to be very hot and hot wind used to be in full flow. In such an environment, sparking from electric pole may take place due to loosening of brackets of electric pole on account of hot winds. In such a situation, sparking from a pole may go for a considerable dista
The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability/evidence and considered the weather conditions to support the occurrence of the fire incident caused by the electric spark.
The court established that compensation claims for electrocution are not within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat as they do not concern the supply of electricity.
The court emphasized the importance of evidence in establishing negligence and relied on the statutory provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 to support its decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application under Section 22 C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was not maintainable for claiming compensation for electrocutio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to deem an award null and void if passed without proper authority and jurisdiction, and the application of the Electricity Ac....
A second appeal is not maintainable under Section 102 of the CPC when the subject matter involves a claim for recovery of money not exceeding Rs. 25,000.
The main legal point established is that negligence in the maintenance of electric lines, leading to injury and permanent disability, can result in liability under the Electricity Act, 2003. Addition....
The court can award interim compensation for injury due to electrocution under public law jurisdiction; full compensation requires evidentiary assessment in a competent court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.