The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Mar-2024 17:59:32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 4620 OF 2013 Bhagya Rout and another …. Petitioners Mr. Gopal Krishna Nayak, Advocate Executive Engineer (Electrical), SOUTHCO and others -versus- …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Prasanta Kumar Tripathy, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No. I.A. No.4118 of 2024
Decision
ORDER 22.03.2024 7. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. This is an application for amendment of cause title of the writ petition. 3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in the meantime, SOUTHCO has been taken over by TPSODL. To set the record straight, an amendment to the cause title is necessary. Hence, he prays for amendment of cause title accordingly. 4. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the TPSODL does not have any objection to the same. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, amendment sought for is allowed. Consolidated cause title filed be placed properly in brief. 6. I.A. is disposed of accordingly. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge 8. 1. This writ petition has been filed praying for adequate W.P.(C) No. 4620 OF 2013 compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the unnatural death of one, Runu Rout, W/o Petitioner No.1 by electrocution. Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Mar-2024 17:59:32 // 2 // 2. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that on the ill-fated day, i.e., on 14th June, 2008 at about 10 A.M., when the wife of the Petitioner No.1 was returning from the village pond after taking bath along with her son, came in contact with live 11 K.V. conductor running from Jagannath Prasad to Bellaguntha and succumbed instantaneously. After getting information, Petitioner No.1 rushed to the spot and saw that his wife is lying dead near the embankment. Immediately, the matter was intimated to the police and U.D. Case No.85 of 2008 was initiated. On investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the officials of the then SOUTHCO (now TPSODL). The wife of Petitioner No.1 though was a house wife, but due to her death, the family suffered immensely. He, therefore, prays that her income be calculated notionally and adequate compensation of Rs.5 lakh be paid. 3. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for TPSODL referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties submits that there was no snapping of conductor of 11 K.V. line with which the wife of Petitioner No.1 came in contact. As the height of the embankment of the pond was enhanced under NAREGA Project, the wife of Petitioner No.1 might have come in contact with the 11 K.V. line. The project work was done without intimating the officials of the then SOUTHCO. Thus, no negligence can be attributed to the officials of SOUTHCO (presently TPSODL) for the death of wife of Petitioner No.1. The cause of action for filing the writ petition arose in the year, 2008. But, the writ petition was filed in the year, 2013. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record. Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Mar-2024 17:59:32 // 3 // 5. It appears from the order sheet that vide order dated 11th July, 2015, the Opposite Parties were directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioners in the shape of bank draft within four weeks. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the TPSODL submits that the said order has been complied with. 6. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioners also concedes to the same. 7. Reverting to the merit of the case, this Court finds that charge sheet has already been filed against the officials of SOUTHCO (presently TPSODL). Thus, there is prima facie case of negligence on the part of the officials of TPSODL in maintaining the 11 K.V. conductor, for which the wife of the Petitioner No.1 came in contact and died instantaneously. Thus, applying the principles of strict liability, this Court holds that the TPSODL is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners for untimely death of the wife of Petitioner No.1. It is, of course, submitted by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for TPSODL that the UD Case has been closed. 8. Since there is material on record to show that the 11 KV conductor was in close proximity with the ridge of the pond, the officials of TPSODL should have maintained a safe distance the conductor from the ridge of the pond accordingly. Although it is submitted that no intimation was given to the officials of the then SOUTHCO (presently TPSODL) regarding execution of NAREGA Project, but that does not absolve the responsibility of the SOUTHCO to maintain the conductor and see that no hazardous incident takes place. 9. It further appears that this Court finding a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioners directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioners, which has already been complied with, as submitted by learned counsel for the parties. Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Mar-2024 17:59:32 // 4 // There is, of course, delay of almost five years in filing the writ petition. But, since this Court finding a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioners issued notice in the matter and directed the Opposite Parties to pay an interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-, which has already been paid, as submitted by learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels that delay in filing the writ petition should not be ground to refuse the prayer made by the Petitioners and the Petitioners should be awarded adequate compensation for the death of wife of Petitioner No.1 due to electrocution. 10. Taking into consideration that the incident occurred in the year, 2008, the wife of the Petitioner was a house wife and the writ petition was filed in the year, 2013, this Court directs that Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation will be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to be paid to the Petitioners. Since Rs.50,000/- has already been paid to the Petitioners in the meantime, the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) more to the Petitioners within a period of six weeks hence failing which it shall carry interest of 6.5% per annum till the date of payment. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 4 of 4