IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 576 of 2007
Jamuni Devi Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board through its Chairman
Cum Managing Director, Ranchi
2. Chief General Manager, JSEB, Hazaribagh
3. Superintending Electrical Engineer, Hazaribagh
4. Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Koderma
5. Asstt. Electrical Engineer, Electrical Supply
Division, Chauparan, Hazaribagh Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Md. Sajid Yunus Warsi, Advocate
For the Respondents: JC to Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate
---
4. 05.08.2009
Heard Shri Yunus Warsi, learned counsel for the petitioner and JC to Mr.
A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Board.
2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the
respondents to pay her compensation of the sum of Rs. 7.00 lakhs for the premature death
of the petitioner’s husband on account of electrification.
3. From the facts stated by the petitioner, it appears that on 2.4.2006, petitioner’s
husband had accidentally come in contact with a 11,000 volt wire allegedly hanging
loosely after having snapped over-head, resulting in his instant death. The matter was
reported to the police and on the basis of the FIR, an U.D. case was registered. The police
investigation confirmed that the deceased had died on account of electrocution when he
came in contact with the high voltage life wire.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board, denying and
disputing the petitioner’s claim primarily on the ground that the petitioner has not
explained as to in what manner, was the respondent Board negligent, nor has the
petitioner specifically pleaded that the death of the deceased had occurred on account of
negligence on the part of the respondent Board.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent Board would submit that the claim for
compensation of this nature would involve disputed question of facts in as much as, the
negligence aspect has to be ascertained and the circumstance in which the deceased had
suffered death, are such things which would require evidence to be recorded.
Referring to the recent judgment of a Bench of this court in the case of Vinita
Sahay and others v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others, (W.P.(C) No. 525
of 2008, learned counsel for the Board submits that the petitioner’s claim in this writ
application being essentially for damages, and since the dispute involves disputed
question of facts, the petitioner ought to have sought her relief from the competent Civil
Court by filing a suit for damages.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention to the
judgment of this court passed in the case of Madhuri Kumari vs. State of Jharkhand
(2003 (1) JLJR 461, submits that from the documents annexed to the writ petition which
are not disputed by the respondents including the FIR and the subsequent inquiry in the
U.D. Case, it has not been denied by the respondents that the death of the deceased had
occurred on account of electrocution when he came in contact with the loosely hanging
live wire. These facts, according to the learned counsel, are sufficient to confirm that the
negligence was on the part of the respondent Board which had allowed the live wire to
hang loosely, thereby exposing persons to risk of coming into contact with such wire
accidentally. Learned counsel submits that in the case of Madhuri Kumari (Supra), this
court while considering this aspect as also the similar ground advanced by the respondent
Board and finding support from the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of
H.M. Ramaul v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1999 Suppl. (1) SCC 198) and in the
case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar (2002 AIR SCW 129, had directed that
the respondent JSEB to pay compensation in terms of the amount specified by the court.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and considering the documents on
record, the undisputed fact which surface is that the petitioner’s husband had suffered
premature death when he came into contact with the loosely hanging high voltage electric
wire. It cannot be disputed therefore, that the high voltage electric wire had snapped and
it was the duty of the Electricity Board to repair the same and to ensure that the electric
lines do not cause any damage to the life and property of the citizens.
8. In the case of Vinita Sahay (Supra), the initial compensation amount appears to
have been paid to the dependants of the victim and considering this aspect, since the total
amount of compensation which could be fixed, was depended upon evidence relating to
the age of the deceased and his earning at the relevant time, etc, this court observed that it
would be appropriate for the applicant to file a suit to claim damages.
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of
with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the concerned authority
of the respondent Electricity Board, namely, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer,
within a period of ten days from the date of this order, stating her claim and the grounds
in support thereof and, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the
representation, the concerned authority of the respondents shall consider the petitioner’s
claim and if satisfied with the documents annexed by the petitioner that the petitioner
deserves to be compensated, then the respondents shall consider to fix a reasonable
amount of compensation and pay the same to the petitioner, within a period of one month
from the date of the decision taken on the petitioner’s representation.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent
Board.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
Ranjeet/