High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3960/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI With the help of this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Const itution of India, the petitioner has sought for issuance of appropriate writ(s) commanding the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.14,70,540/- as compensation, becau se his house was burnt and gutted by fire as live wire, passing over the roof of the house of the petitioner, came, according to the petitioner, in contact with the G.I. Sheet roofing of the petitioner’s house. The petitioner’s case may, in brief, be described thus: There was an ele ctric wire passing over the roof of the petitioner’s house inasmuch as the Elect ricity Board concerned used to supply electricity to the highway constructing au thorities, the distance between the roof and the electric energy supplying wire being about 7/8 inches. Despite several complaints, made, in this regard, by the petitioner, the respondents concerned did not, according to the petitioner, tak e any precautionary measure and did not remove the wire. Due to the negligence, on the part of the respondents concerned, the live wire, which passed over the r oof of the petitioner’s house, happened to touch the G.I. Sheet roofing of the p etitioner’s house, on 12.04.2009, at about 6 pm following the contact between G. I. Sheet roofing and the live wire broke out and, as a result thereof, the entir e dwelling house of the petitioner, along with his belongings, was charred to as hes. The petitioner has, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs.14,70,540/- to be paid t o him as compensation by the Electricity Board concerned. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed their affidavit and resisted the petit ioner’s claim for compensation. Their case, as transpires from their affidavit, is as under:
Legal Reasoning
On 12.04.2009, at about 6 pm, line man, Bipul Bhumiz, informed the Assis tant Engineer, Sonapur Electrical Sub-Division, about an incident of fire in the house of the petitioner and, immediately, electricity line was shut down and Sr i Barman visited the place of the incident. The Manager of Sonapur Electrical Su b-Division also visited the place and, upon spot verification, the officials of the Board came to know that initially, fire had broken out in the house of the p etitioner and when the fire spread, the electricity wire, passing nearby, due to heat, broke and fell down on the house of the petitioner, the house of the peti tioner being a house with ’Tarja’ walls having CI sheets. The contesting respond ents were, therefore, not responsible for the accident of fire, which took place at the petitioner’s house. This apart, the list of items, which were shown by t he petitioner to have been damaged, is not correct and, therefore, the same may not be accepted. The claim made by the petitioner vis-a-vis the verification, made by the respondents, clearly reveal, according to the contesting respondents, that ther e are disputed questions of fact between the parties and, therefore, a civil cou rt of competent jurisdiction is the appropriate forum for deciding such disputed questions of fact. Moreover, Chief Electrical Inspector, Assam, has not been ma de a party to the present writ petition and, in absence of statutory report from the Chief Electrical Inspector, Assam, the respondents cannot be held liable fo r payment of any compensation. The respondents have denied the contention of the petitioner that the pe titioner had filed various complaints before the respondents to make alternative arrangements and that a letter, dated 10.03.2009, was submitted by the petition er before the Sub-Divisional Officer, ASEB, Sonapur, and it was as a result of n egligence, on the part of the respondents, that the electricity wire touched the roof of the petitioner’s house and fire broke out. The further case of the cont esting respondents is that these respondents came to know that the fire had brok en out at the house of the petitioner not due to snapping of the electrical wire and, therefore, there is no question of payment of any compensation to the peti tioner for the alleged incident.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. H. Sharma, learned counsel, for the respondents. Though the contesting respondents have denied and disputed the facts, wh ich had, according to the petitioner, allegedly given rise to burning of the hou se of the petitioner, the fact of the matter remains that the averments, made in the affidavit, do not give any indication that any of them was present at the p lace of the accident, when the accident had taken place, including person, who h ad sworn the affidavit inasmuch as Clause (a) of para 3 of the affidavit, which the contesting respondents have filed, shows that on being informed about the ac cident, Assistant Engineer, Sonapur Electrical Sub-Division, visited the place o f accident and so did the Manager, Sonapur Electrical Sub-Division and, on spot verification, they ’came to know’ that initially, fire had broken out in the hou se of the petitioner and when fire spread, the electricity wire, passing nearby, due to heat, broke and fell down on the house of the petitioner. The averments, so made, clearly indicate, as already indicated hereinbefore, that respondents were not present at the site of the accident, when the accident had taken place. However, the contents of para 12 of the affidavit, in question, show that the s aid averments have been sworn as true to the ’knowledge’ of the contesting respo ndents. This is noting, but palpably false assertion. At any rate, a mere denial, supported by an incorrect/false affidavit, can not take away the jurisdiction of the writ Court. Situated thus, this Court is clearly of the view that there is no legally effective denial by the contesting respondents of the case, which the petitioner has set up, and, therefore, the petitioner’s case needs to be accepted as true. Consequent to the conclusion, which this Court has reached above, it becomes clear that the petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation. However, even the question of quantum of compensation is in dispute. It needs to be noted, in this regard, that the petitioner has given a list of materials, which were, acc ording to the petitioner, destroyed, because of the fire, which had gutted his h ouse. Even denial to this assertion is not legally sustainable inasmuch as the p etitioner’s claim, made in this regard, has been denied to the best of (cid:28)knowledg e (cid:29) of the respondents, which, in the face of the fact that there is no assertion that any of the respondents were aware of the materials, which had been lying i n the house of the petitioner, can be given no credence at all. What is, now, of immense importance to note is that it has been made cle ar by the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, in their affidavit-in-opposition, that the wire carrying electricity was a low tension wire. At the time of hearing, it has been submitted, on behalf of the contesti ng respondents, that when a conductor of 230 voltage, which a low tension line c arries, gets disconnected, the fuse, meant for protection at the end of the tran sformer, would blow out immediately and the power supply will be discontinued a nd, hence, occurring of fire is not possible and even if it is assumed that the conductor was snapped and fell on the GI Sheet roof of the petitioner’s house, t here would have been electrocution and no man or animal would have survived. It is also submitted, in this regard, that the melting point of tin is 450 degree centigrade and, hence, to cause fire to GI Sheets, the temperature should reach up to 450 degree centigrade and the electrical spark, if caused due to snapping of low tension conductor, would not be sufficient to create such a high temperat ure. It is further submitted that even if it is assumed that the electricity li ne was not tripped immediately, then, also, all the equipments of electrical net work, like the electricity line, transformer, etc., would have been damaged, but no such damage was found to have been caused. In the face of the submissions, which have been noted above, it becomes abundantly clear that if this Court has to determine the correctness of the abov e submissions made by the contesting respondents, this Court would be required t o hold an enquiry and take evidence. The decision on this aspect of the case wo uld, thus, be a decision on purely disputed question of fact. It is neither des irable nor warranted that disputed questions of fact be decided in a writ procee ding of present nature, when an action in tort is involved. The petitioner’s re medy, therefore, lies in instituting appropriate suit in a civil court of compet ent jurisdiction. This fact could not be disputed on behalf of the petitioner.
Decision
In view of the above, it has been submitted, on behalf of the petitioner , that the petitioner seeks to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to insti tute an appropriate suit. To the submission, so made, no objection has been rai sed. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest o f justice, this writ petition is disposed of as having been withdrawn by the pet itioner leaving the petitioner at liberty to institute, in future, if so advised , an appropriate suit for remedy of his grievances. No order as to costs.