Important point
Where in writ petition compensation on account of death due to electrocution, allegedly due to negligence on the part of respondent Corporation, was claimed but the defence was that there was no negligence and the incident was due to Act of God or because of act of some other persons, action in writ petition being action in tort, writ petition was not maintainable.

Headnote:Constitution of India - Article 226-Writ Petition-Maintainability of-Writ petition claiming compensation on account of death due to electrocution-Allegation that electric wire of respondent Corporation was lying across road after getting snapped from overhead electric line and it was because of negligence of Corporation in not properly maintaining transmission line-Defence that there was no negligence but incident accrued because of Act of God or of acts of some other persons-Plea that facts were under dispute and writ petition was not proper remedy-High Court decided case on merit and awarded compensation-Not justified-High Court committed an error in entertaining writ petition-Action was in tort and negligence was required to be established-Power available under Article 142 to Supreme Court is not available to High Court.
       Held : The High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that “admittedly prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants”. The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. Mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to the appellant No. 1 had snapped and the deceased had come into contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come into contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. (Para 6)
       The power which is available to this Court under Article 142 is not available to the High Courts. (Para 7)
       Held further as the High Court did not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution without properly appreciating the nature of its jurisdiction, the impugned judgments deserve to be set aside. However, in view of the fair stand taken by the appellants that these appeals have been filed as test cases only and in view of long lapse of time they will not recover the amounts already paid to the respondents, we do not think it necessary to set aside the impugned judgments because that may again expose the appellants to actions in Civil Courts by the persons claiming to be the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. (Para 8)

Judgment

G.T. Nanavati, J.-Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this batch of 10 appeals the question which arises for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution and awarding compensation to the writ petitioners even though the appellants - who were the respondents in the said writ petitions - had denied their liability on the ground that the deaths had not occurred as a result of their negligence, but because of an act of God or of acts of some other persons.

3. In view of the final order that we propose to pass it is not necessary to state the facts of all these cases. We shall, therefore, narrate the facts of only one case - the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5909 of 1998. A writ petition being O.J.C. No. 3351 of 1997 was filed by one Sukamani Das claiming to be the widow of Pratap Chandra Das of village Odangi seeking compensation for the death of her husband due to electrocution. It was averred in the writ petition that on 4.8.1996 Pratap Chandra Das, while he was proceeding from his village to another place for marketing, decided to return to his village as dark clouds gathered in the sky and, there were thunder bolts also. While he was returning it had started raining and when he was walking along the Gosipatna-Amara road he came in contact with an electric wire which was lying across the road after getting snapped from the overhead electric line. It was further averred that the electric wire had snapped because of the negligence of the GRIDCO and its officers (the appellants) in not properly maintaining the electricity transmission line and, therefore, they were liable to pay damages for their negligent act. In support of her claim the petitioner had produced a copy of the F.I.R., the inquest report and the post-mortem notes. It was further stated that even though she had made representations to the GRIDCO for payment of compensation it had disputed its liability and refused to pay any compensation. She claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the death of her husband, as her husband was 53 years old when he died, was running a grocery shop and earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. In their counter-affidavit the appellants stated that because of the thunder bolt and lightening one of the conductors of the 12W L.T. line had snapped even though proper guarding was provided. As soon as the information regarding the snapping of line was received from the Line-helper residing at village Amara the power was disconnected. The officers of the appellant had thereafter rushed to that spot and had noticed that one shackle insulator had broken due to lightening and the conductor had also snapped from that shackle insulator along with the guarding and the sub-station fuse had also blown out. It was further stated in their counter-affidavit that on inquiry the officers had learnt that Pratap Chandra Das had died due to lightening and not because he had come in contact with the snapped live wire. It was stated by way of defence that the 12W L.T. line had snapped because of an act of God and not because of any negligence on the part of the appellant and its officers. Thus, the appellants had denied the fact that Pratap Chandra Das had died as a result of coming into contact with the live electric wire and also raised a defence that even if Pratap Chandra Das had died as a result of coming into contact with the live electric wire it was a pure case of accident arising out of an act of God and his death was not because of any negligence on the part of the appellant and its officers in maintaining the transmission line. It was also contended before the High Court on behalf of the appellants that the writ petition was not a proper remedy as the facts stated by the writ petitioner were disputed by them and the dispute between the parties could not be decided without evidence being led by both the sides. The High Court, however, decid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1029

Cases Referred (2)