Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 334 (ORI)

SHANTILATA SRICHANDAN v. STATE OF ORISSA

2009-04-16

A.S.NAIDU

body2009
JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Petitioner is the mother of one Srikanta Kumar Srichandan. Srikanta was a student of +3 Commerce and was prosecuting his studies at Prananath Autonomous College, Khurda. On 20th July, 2007 while he was walking on the road, it is averred, he came in contact with a live electric wire which was hanging over the road and received electric shock. He succumbed to the said shock. It is alleged that due to negligence of the opposite parties the live electric wire had sagged from the pole and was hanging in close proximity to the road. Unfortunately it came in contact with the hands of Srikanta. Due to the premature death of his son, which according to the Petitioner was caused due to utter negligence of the opposite parties, she claimed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-towards compensation. 2. In support of her case, the Petitioner relied upon the copy of the F.I.R. lodged before Khurda Police Station, on the basis of which U.D. Case No. 40 was registered on 20.7.2007. Requisitions given by the Police to the ADMO to conduct post mortem, inquest report and different other documents. Copy of the post mortem report (Annexure-4) reveals that the death was caused due to "complication arising out of high voltage electrocution". The F.I.R. and other documents support the case of the Petitioner to certain extent. 3. Mr. Sarangi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying upon the decisions in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi and Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1603 , Sarala Sahu and Ors. v. State of Orissa reported in AIR 2001 Ori 106 and Padma Behari Lal Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board and Another submitted that the death of Srikanta having taken place only due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties in maintaining the live electric wires, they are responsible to pay compensation. 4. The aforesaid submissions were strongly repudiated by Mr. Dash learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. According to him the post mortem report reveals that the hands of the deceased sustained burn injuries and not other parts. The said fact gives an impression that while walking on the road Srikanta tried to catch hold of the electric wire, consequently he received shock. Thus, according to Mr. Dash learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. According to him the post mortem report reveals that the hands of the deceased sustained burn injuries and not other parts. The said fact gives an impression that while walking on the road Srikanta tried to catch hold of the electric wire, consequently he received shock. Thus, according to Mr. Dash, the entire negligence cannot be attributed to the opposite parties alone, rather, it appears that the deceased tried to catch hold of the live wire and therefore some latches can be attributed also to him. More so, it is submitted that compensation cannot be awarded by a Writ court as it involves adjudication of facts. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and the documents annexed. Prima facie this Court is satisfied that the son of the Petitioner breathed his last due to electric shock received by him. Supply of electricity is the duty of the opposite parties. The said duty also casts an onerous obligation on it to maintain live wires, so that the same will not create threat to human civilization. A 11 KV live electric wire should always be kept out of the reach of any common man. The fact that the live wire came in contact with the hands of a young boy walking on the road, prima facie reveals that the same was not maintained properly. In the case of West Bengal Electricity Board and Ors. v. Sachin Banerjee and Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 3629 , the Apex Court held that this kind of Writ Petitions raise disputed questions of fact and therefore cannot be entertained under Writ jurisdiction. The question as to whether the opposite parties committed any negligence or not and as to whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim are basic questions to be considered and determined after assessing the evidence by appropriate authority or court. Law is well settled that the award of compensation depends upon the negligence and negligence is a question of fact. This Court, therefore, feels that the negligence on the part of either party has to be established by adducing cogent evidence before any compensation can be awarded. The accident in question took place on 20.7.2007. Thus, the time prescribed for filing of a suit is not over as yet. 6. This Court, therefore, feels that the negligence on the part of either party has to be established by adducing cogent evidence before any compensation can be awarded. The accident in question took place on 20.7.2007. Thus, the time prescribed for filing of a suit is not over as yet. 6. Considering the aforesaid f's and taking into consideration that a mother has lost his son at a prime age, prima facie as it appears due to negligence of the opposite parties, this Court feels that an interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) would be just and proper to mitigate the grievance of the Petitioner for the time being. This Court, therefore, directs the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) without prejudice to the rights and contentions to be raised by them in the event a suit is filed within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, failing which it shall carry interest ' 6% per annum till the date of such payment. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file a suit claiming further compensation, if she is so advised. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.