High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2361/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
By filing this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a direction to the Assam State Electricity Boar d, in short, ASEB, to pay compensation on account of death of his wife, Rekha Du tta, who died an untimely death on 13.03.2006 due to electrocution because of ne gligence of the ASEB authority, leaving behind her husband, two daughters and on e son. At the time of her death, she was 40 years old. She was a homemaker. 2. The facts, in a nut-shell, are that a high voltage electric line passes by the house of the petitioner. On 13.03.2006, around evening, the line was snap ped and was in a tangled-up condition and in spite of being informed by the vill agers, the staff of respondent no. 5 did not take any measure either to repair t he line or to disconnect electricity supply. However, the petitioner’s wife and their two daughters were not aware of the same. The two daughters were returning home from a religious village function at around 1:00 p.m. and they came in con tact with the live-wire and hearing their shouts, the petitioner’s wife rushed o ut only to suffer electric shock herself. She was immediately taken to the hospi tal but she was declared dead. An ejahar was lodged by the Gaonbura of Nagakheli a Gaon Panchayat before the Officer-in-Charge of the Dhemaji Police Station on t he basis of which Dhemaji P.S. UD Case No. 5/2006 was registered. 3. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by ASEB and its successor company, namely, Upper Assam Electricity Distribution Company Limited (UAEDCL). Apart fro m raising question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of not availing efficacious and adequate alternative remedy by way of filing a civil su it, it is stated that no information was received by the local ASEB/UAEDCL autho rities regarding snapping or tearing-up of the electric conductor in the said vi llage. As per report of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhemaji Electrical Sub-Divi sion, the electric line in question was perfect till the night of 13.03.2006. Th e Senior Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam, Tezpur was informed about th e accident by letter dated 14.03.2006. Two villagers also stated that nobody in that village informed the authority about the snapping of the electric wire. 4. Md. Giash Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dea th of the wife of the petitioner due to electrocution is an admitted fact. It is also not disputed by the respondents that the line was not snapped at all. The stand taken in the affidavit that line was in good condition till mid-night is n ot correct and such statement is made only for the purpose of this case. Learned counsel, in these circumstances, submits that there is no escape from the concl usion that there was negligence on the part of the ASEB authorities in maintaini ng the electric line. Accordingly, he submits that the Court may grant such comp ensation as deemed fit by this Court. 5. Mr. D. Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB very fairly submits that this Court, on a number of occasions, had directed to pay compensation to the legal representatives of victims dying due to electrocution when the acciden t had occurred because of fault or negligence of ASEB. It is also submitted by h im that by an Office Memorandum dated 22.12.2008, payment of compensation arisin g out of fatal electrical accident, in relation to persons who are not in employ ment of the Board, has been re-fixed and such memorandum envisages payment of Rs . 1.00 lakhs, Rs. 1.50 lakhs and Rs. 1.00 lakh in respect of victims upto 20 yea rs of age, above 20 years and upto 55 years of age and above 55 years of age, re spectively, subject to claimant submitting documents as indicated therein. It is also submitted that there was no failure or negligence on the part of ASEB in t he instant case in maintenance of the electric line. Relying on the statements m ade by Surya Gohain and Jogen Saikia, annexed as Annexure - I and Annexure - 2 o f the affidavit, learned counsel submits that alleged snapping of electric-wire was not informed by anyone and therefore, no compensation is called for in the i nstant case. 6. and have perused the materials on record. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties 7. Although a period of 6 years have passed, the respondent State has not f iled any affidavit. It has also not placed on record the statutory report relati ng to the electrical accident. The post-mortem report annexed as Annexure - IV shows that in the opinio 8. n of doctor, the cause of death was due to electric shock. Annexure - III of the writ petition which is a report of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhemaji Electri cal Sub-Division, also indicates that the wife of the petitioner died due to ele ctrocution. While it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the line was sna pped in the evening time and accordingly the villagers had informed the local of fice of ASEB at Dhemaji, the same is disputed by the ASEB authorities. However, that the electrical line had not snapped at all is not the stand of the responde nts. It is not known on what basis in Annexure - III of the affidavit, which is a ’Note’ on the causes leading to the accident by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, D hemaji Electrical Sub-Division, it had been recorded that the electric line was quite perfect and was (cid:28)healthy (cid:29) till late at night and the accident had taken pl ace at 1:00 p.m. It is in this context, the statements of Jogen Saikia and Surya Gohain seem to be out of place. While the incident took place in Nagakhelia Gao n, none of the aforesaid two persons are from the said village. While Surya Goha in is from village Kakuria Ahom Gaon, Jogen Saikia is from Jamuguri Koch Gaon. W ho they are have not been explained in the affidavit and both of them claimed to have witnessed the occurrence at the identical time, at 7:50 a.m. At any rate, the said two statements can be best construed to have conveyed that death due to electrocution because of the snapped electric wire was not informed to the Dhem aji Electrical Sub-Division, either in writing or verbally. It does not say that the villagers did not inform about snapping of the electric line. Be that as it may, this Court will not go into the disputed area as to when the line had snap ped. 9. It is the duty of ASEB to keep the lines drawn at all times and to maint ain that position. Materials on record do not indicate that there was any Act of God such as storm, etc. causing damage to the electric posts. There was not eve n a faintest attempt on the part of the respondents to throw light as to how the line could have been snapped. In these circumstances, very factum of snapping o f electric lines and falling on the road resulting in a veritable death-trap, wh ich indeed claimed a casualty, must be held to be because of negligence of ASEB authorities. 10. In view of the above determination, this Court is of the opinion that th e petitioner would be entitled to some compensation. Mr. Bhattacharyya has submi tted that in some cases this Court had granted compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs and in some cases Rs. 3.00 lakhs and there is no uniformity in the amount of compen sation directed to be paid. He has submitted that this Court has been directing payment of compensation as considered appropriate by the Court. He, however, sub mits that as there is an Office Memorandum, this Court may also direct payment o f compensation in terms of the said Memorandum. 11. Considering the matter in its entirety, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to claim compensation by way of damages in an appropriate foru m, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be sub-served i f an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- is directed to be paid by the ASEB authorities to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. The said amount be paid within a period of 4 months from today. It is also directed that in the event of failure to pay com pensation within the aforesaid period, interest @9% per annum will accrue till p ayment. 12. Considering the prayer made by Mr. Bhattacharyya, it is provided that AS EB authorities may deposit the amount before the Registry of this Court with int imation to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The amount will be paid to th e petitioner on being duly identified by the learned counsel of the petitioner. 13.
Decision
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. No cost.