The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 3546 OF 2013 Surendra Sahoo and another Petitioners Mr. Gopal K. Nayak, Advocate …. -versus- Managing Director, Electrical, TATA Power Cent Odisha Distribution Ltd. (TPCODL) and others …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Suraj Mohanty, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.1) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 23.03.2023 19. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioners in this writ petition seek for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of their son due to electrocution. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioners that an 11 K.V. conductor has been drawn over the house of one, Pravakar Sahoo. Although several representations i.e. on 2nd January, 2004 and 17th March, 2005 were made to remove the 11K.V. line drawn over the house of said Pravakar Sahoo, the erstwhile distribution company did not pay any heed to the same. On the ill-fated day, i.e., on 18th November, 2008, the deceased, namely, Sukanta Kumar Sahoo, a boy of twelve years being the nephew had been to the house of said Pravakar. He accidentally came in contact with the said 11 K.V. line and sustained severe burn injuries. He was immediately shifted to the Pipili Hospital and to Bibekananda Hospital, Bhubaneswar. He was treated their till his death on 19th thereafter Page 1 of 5 // 2 // November, 2008 in the said hospital. F.I.R. was lodged before the Pipili Police Station, which was registered as Pipili P.S.U.D. Case No.61 of 2008. The post mortem report clearly reveals that due to dehydration and septicemic shock due to burn. The Petitioners are the parents of the deceased. As no compensation was paid for the death of their son due to electrocution, Petitioner No.1 made a representation to the S.D.O. (Electrical), Pipili on 25th March, 2010 under Annexure-4, which was not paid any heed. As such, finding no other alternative this writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Authorities under the TPCODL referring to the counter affidavit submits that 11 K.V. line was drawn since last twenty five years by the erstwhile Odisha State Electrical Board from the Mangalpur feeder. Said Pravakar Sahoo, subsequently constructed his house without taking permission from the erstwhile distribution company. No intimation of construction of the house was also given to the concerned distribution company Since Pravakar Sahoo, the owner of the house had constructed the house unauthorizedly under the 11 K.V. line, the Opposite Parties are not liable to pay any compensation, as the death was not due to negligence of the Opposite Parties or the erstwhile distribution company. He further submits that the writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation, as the death took place on 19th November, 2008 and the writ petition has been filed on 13th February, 2013, i.e., after more than four years. In support of his case he drew attention of this Court to Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, which reads as under: Page 2 of 5 // 3 // “82. Erection of or alternation to buildings, structures, flood banks and elevation of roads- (1) If at any time subsequent to the erection of an overhead line (whether covered with insulating material or bare), any person proposes to erect a new building or structure or flood bank or to raise any road level or to carry out any other type of work whether permanent or temporary or to make in or upon any building or structure of flood bank or road, any permanent or temporary addition or alternation, he and the contractor whom he employs to carry out the erection, addition or alteration, shall if such work, building, structure, flood bank, road or additions and alterations thereto, would, during or after the construction result in contravention of any of the provisions of rule 77, 79 or 80, give notice in writing of his intention to the supplier and to the Inspector and shall furnish therewith a scale drawing showing the proposed building, structure, flood bank road, any addition or alteration and scaffolding required during the construction. (2) (a) On receipt of the notice referred to in sub- rule (1) or otherwise, the supplier shall examine whether the line under reference was lawfully laid and whether the person was liable to pay the cost of alteration and if so, send a notice without undue delay, to such person together with an estimate of the cost of the expenditure likely to be incurred to so after the overhead line and require him to deposit, within 30 days of the receipt of the notice with the supplier, the amount of the estimated cost. (b) If the person referred to in sub-rule (1) disputes the suppliers estimated cost of alteration of the overhead line or even the responsibility to pay such cost the dispute may be referred to the Inspector by either of the parties whereupon the same shall be decided by the Inspector.” 5. He also referred to the Regulations 63 of the Central Electricity Authority (Technical Standards for Communication System in Power System Operations) Regulations, 2020. In that view of the matter he submits that the Opposite Parties- distribution company cannot be held responsible for the death of Page 3 of 5 // 4 // the deceased. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the death of the child of twelve years was occurred on 19th November, 2008 due to electrocution. A stand has been taken by the Opposite Parties- distribution company stating that house of Pravakar Sahoo was build after the 11 K.V. overhead line from Mangalpur Feeder was drawn. It is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that 11 K.V. conductor was drawn twenty five years back by erstwhile Odisha State Electricity Board from Mangalpur Feeder. Although it v. is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that 11 K.V. overhead conductor was drawn after the house of Pravakar Sahoo was constructed, but no material is available in support of the same. To the contrary, it appears that no objection whatsoever was raised by said Pravakar Sahoo at the time of drawl of 11 K.V, overhead line. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, however, submits that on 2nd January, 2004 and 17th March, 2005, representations were submitted to the erstwhile distribution company for removal of 11 K.V. conductor. But the said grievance was not paid any heed. When 11 K.V. line had already been drawn and no objection was raised at that point of time before drawl of the 11 K.V. conductor, the distribution company could not have acted upon the representation of the Petitioner, more particularly when it is stated in the counter affidavit that the conductor was drawn twenty five years back by the erstwhile O.S.E.B. From the materials available on record, it is not clear as to whether due to negligence of the Opposite Parties, death of the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // child occurred. On the other hand, prima facie materials are available on record to the effect that after drawl of the 11 K.V. conductor, house of Pravakar Sahoo was built without intimating or taking permission of the erstwhile distribution company. 7. In view of the above, this Court is not in a position to entertain the prayer made by learned counsel for the Petitioners, as it involves serious disputed questions of fact. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioners may avail the remedy in common law forum, if it is still available to them. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5