High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3612/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA
Decision
Both the writ petitions by and between the same parties and pertaining t o the same incident in respect of which compensation has been prayed for, have b een heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. As stated in the writ petition, the petitioner’s wife and daughter got e lectrocuted on 23.08.2002 in respect of which an FIR was lodged on 23.08.2002. In this regard Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 101/2002 was registered under Section 29 0/304(A)/34 IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that because of negligence on the part of the ASEB the sad incident happened and accordingly compensation has been prayed for on account of death of his wife and daughter. According to the p etitioner, he alongwith his two minor sons suffered some burn injuries. Compensa tion has been prayed for on that count also. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned SC, ASEB. I have also heard Ms. R. Gogoi, learned Sta te counsel appearing for the State respondent. Referring to the Electrical Inspector’s report annexed to the counter af fidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petit ioner submits that it is a fit case for awarding adequate compensation for negli gence on the part of the ASEB authority because of which the petitioner lost his wife and daughter and suffered some injury alongwith his two minor sons. On the other hand, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned SC, ASEB submits that while the petitioner might be entitled to compensation on account of death of hi s wife and daughter, if it is found that the said incident had occurred due to n egligence of the ASEB authority, but the petitioner and his two minor sons are n ot entitled to compensation as nothing has been shown in the writ petition that they had suffered injury due to the incident. In reference to the counter affida vit filed by the ASEB, he submits that in fact there was no negligence on the pa rt of the ASEB authority and no compensation can be awarded solely on the basis of the report submitted by the Electrical Inspector. On the other hand, Ms. R. G ogoi, learned State counsel submits that the incident having been occurred as in dicated in the writ petition and the report furnished by the Sr. Electrical Insp ector on 19.01.2013 annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, it is for the writ court to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation or not and if entitled, what should be the quantum of compen sation. In the Sr. Electrical Inspector report dated 19.01.2013, it has been thu s: (cid:28)On 23rd August, 2002 morning the victims were electrocuted at the accident site due to persistence of very high voltage gradient in the soil around a iron jois t pole of the 11,000 volts over head line emanating from 33KV/11KV Abhayapur su b-station of ASEB towards Baitamari and passing through the premises of Shri Mah endra Chandra Ray at village Deuripara, North Salamara. From the documents/records as furnished by the officials of the electricity util ity and after inspecting the site, it appears to me that the victims died due to electrical shock caused by the voltage gradient in the soil around the metallic support of the over head line of ASEB. The voltage gradient developed due to pu ncture a porcelain pin insulator of the aforesaid over head line, supporting one of the bare live conductors on a metallic pole in the premises of Shri Mahendra Chandra Ray. As the metallic poles of the aforesaid high voltage over head line were not earthed permanently and efficiently; so after puncture of one of the p in insulators on (cid:28)T (cid:29) cross arm of the metallic pole, one live conductor of the o ver head line came in contact with the (cid:28)T (cid:29) cross arm attached to the metallic po le and very high voltage gradient developed in the soil around the metallic pole of the over head line. It appears that the electrical protection system for the over head line at the sending end of the over head line i.e. at Abhayapur 33KV/ 11KV substation end failed to operate timely and quickly to isolate the persiste nt fault developed in the over head line in the premises of Shri Mahendra Chandr a Ray. (cid:29) The report further states that the provision of Electricity Act and Rule s framed thereunder were not complied with by the owner of overhead line on the date of incident. In the report following recommendation has been made. (cid:28)The owner of the over head lines should follow the provisions of the Central El ectricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulation s, 2010 and also in relevant Code of Practices of the Bureau of Indian Standards in construction, installation and maintenance of over head power lines to ensur e safety and minimize break down time. (cid:29) On perusal of the above report what is seen is that apart from the negli gence on the part of the owner of the high voltage over head line, there is also negligence on the part of the ASEB authority inasmuch as it was its duty to see that its high voltage over head line was well protected and was not dangerous f or human live. So far as the alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner alongwith his two minor sons is concerned, there is nothing to show that they had suffered an y such injury. In absence of any authentic report/document, this court exercisin g the writ jurisdiction cannot issue any direction for compensation on that coun t. Considering the matter in its entirety, both the writ petitions are disp osed of directing the ASEB authority to pay compensation of Rs. 1.50 laksh for d eath of his wife and Rs. 1 lakh for death of his daughter. Coupled with the afor esaid two amounts, another amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall also be paid for inciden tal and other expenses. The entire amount shall be deposited with the Registry o f this Court. Thereafter the Registry shall hand over the same to the petitioner upon proper identification.