Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 174 (JK)

Mohd. Shafi v. Commissioner/Secretary, PDD

2007-09-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2007
1. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this court for commanding the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 5 lacs in his favour with 18% interest till its final realization. Before proceeding further in the matter, the brief facts of the case are required to be noticed. 2. It is averred that the petitioner was working as Labourer and earning Rs. 100/- per day. On 5-6-1998 while he was working and busy in his Agricultural Farm, situate at Bata Tachloo, a live electric line fell on him and he got seriously injured. He was shifted to the SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, where his right arm below elbow was amputated due to electrocution, rendering him permanently disabled. An FIR came to be lodged in police station about the incident and villagers informed the concerned authorities. Representations came to be made before the Superintending Engineer concerned who endorsed the same to the Executive Engineer, Kulgam. Field staff -- Assistant Executive Engineer submitted a detailed report on 8-6-1998 to the Executive Engineer who submitted the same to the Superintending Engineer on 29-8-1998. It is further averred in the petition that as the authorities slept over the matter, the villagers were constrained to submit a representation to the concerned MLA who forwarded the same to Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. It is specifically pleaded that it was due to sheer negligence of the respondents that the petitioner had met with an accident in which he lost his right arm below elbow. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs with 18% interest till its final realization with the further command to appoint him as a class IV employee. The petitioner has annexed documents contained in annexures P1 to P5, disclosing that he was rendered disabled due to negligence of the respondents. 3. Respondents have filed reply. It is profitable to reproduce para 3 of the reply hereunder: "With respect to para 3, it is submitted that mere lodging of FIR is not sufficient to prove negligence of answering respondents. 3. Respondents have filed reply. It is profitable to reproduce para 3 of the reply hereunder: "With respect to para 3, it is submitted that mere lodging of FIR is not sufficient to prove negligence of answering respondents. It is submitted that petitioner allegedly met with an accident while working in Agricultural farm at Bota Tachloo due to snapping of 11 KV tap line which had been connected by some unknown persons of Wanpora when the said tap line had been disconnected before five days in order to provide fault free power supply to the 11 K.V.tap line to the Lift Irrigation Station, situated at Redwani. The staff who had been maintaining said snapped 11 KV tap line had been engaged in clearing the LT net work at Khudwani. Qaimoh an Shamsipora tap lien at the time of mishap/accident. It is vehemently denied that there had been any negligence on the part of the field staff because the snapped tap line had already been disconnected as precautionary measures." 4. Petitioner has not filed rejoinder. It is worthwhile to mention here that the respondents have not denied the averments made in the petition. Rather they have admitted that petitioner was working in his Agricultural Farm at the relevant point of time, but he sustained injuries due to snapping of 11 KV tap line, but not due to negligence of the respondents. Thus in the given circumstances, the cause of injury is admitted. Performing agricultural vocation in his agricultural farm at Bata Tachloo is also admitted. The only plea raised by the respondents is that they have not done anything which could be construed negligence on their part. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. It is duty of the respondent -- State and the employees of the Electric Department to maintain electric lines and to see that no untoward incident takes place due to their negligence and that there is no disruption in electricity supply due to any failure on their part. So the question of negligence, cause of accident and extent of injury is virtually admitted by the respondents. The argument of Mr. So the question of negligence, cause of accident and extent of injury is virtually admitted by the respondents. The argument of Mr. Beigh, appearing for the respondents that onus to prove negligence on the part of the petitioners is a question of fact which cannot be gone into by the writ court, as per mandate of apex court judgement in case titled Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Vs. Sukamani Das and another, (1999) 7 SCC 298. is devoid of any force. The ratio laid down in the said judgement is that when cause of accident and negligence is denied, then writ petition is not maintainable and in that case, the proper remedy is to seek appropriate remedy from a civil court. Applying the ratio laid down in that judgement, the cause of injury and accident is admitted in the instant case. The negligence on the part of respondents is also proved. Letters Patent bench of this court had an occasion to deal with an identical case, LPA No. 45/1995 titled Miss Haneefa Bano Vs. State and others, decided on 8-9-1997, in which it has been held as under: ".........This court after seeing the circumstances of the case feels that sufficient material is on the file to decide the case on merits and there is no need for any further enquiry into the matter. So, we hold that there is no dispute regarding the facts in the case. The case can be adjudicated upon on the facts which are already on the record. Question No. 2 raised supra, is accordingly, answered in negative." 6. As discussed hereinabove, it was the duty of the Electric department to maintain electric lines and if they fail to do, it amounts to dereliction of duty. It was their duty to maintain the line and to provide a fault free power supply to the consumers. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by this court in the above referred judgement, I deem it proper to allow this petition. 7. Now the question is what will be the just and proper compensation in the given circumstances of the case. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner has sustained injury and his right arm below elbow came to be amputated. Medical certificate on record also discloses that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability. In the given circumstances of the case, the earning capacity of the petitioner stand affected. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner has sustained injury and his right arm below elbow came to be amputated. Medical certificate on record also discloses that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability. In the given circumstances of the case, the earning capacity of the petitioner stand affected. He is not in a position to work and earn in the manner, method and with zeal as he would have been putting before incurring disability. Keeping in view provisions of the Workman Compensation Act, Rules read with provisions contained in the Motor Vehicle Act and the fact that the petitioner being a labourer, I deem it proper to award a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in his favour, which in no case is equivalent to the permanent disablement, he has suffered. But to some extent, this amount will mitigate his sufferings and pain in future. The amount be deposited with the Registry within a period of three months from today, failing they shall have to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 15-3-1999 till its final realization. Disposed of accordingly.