Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 63 (GAU)

Pi Rokimi v. State of Mizoram

2009-01-29

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2009
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming Rs.15,00,000 as compensation for the death of her son Lalsangpuia due to electrocution on 19.10.2006 at Thenzawl while cutting the young tree in the jungle. The petitioner's son was aged about 21 years 4 months and 17 days at the time of his death and his yearly income before his death was Rs.1,35,000, in support of which, an income certificate (photocopy) issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thenzawl Sub-Division (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) has been annexed. It is stated in the petition that he was the sole earning member of her family and her deceased son was maintaining her two unmarried daughters including herself and his death has created a vacuum in the family causing acute financial hardships and miseries. The deceased was the only and eldest male member in her family and he was the only future hope of the petitioner's family. The petitioner has annexed a photocopy of the post mortem report (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Medical Officer, Thenzawl CHC in which, it is recorded that "the cause of death was probably due to shock as a result of electrocution". 3. This Court by an order dated 6.12.2007 directed the petitioner to furnish a copy of this petition to the Electrical Inspector and on receipt of the same he shall cause inquiry as may be deemed necessary and furnish a report within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the writ petition by the said Electrical Inspector. Accordingly, the inspection was done on 30.1.2008 by one Sh. Lalsangzuala, JE along with Sh. Thanseia, Senior Lineman and Sh. V.L. Fakawma, EW at the spot of the accident, i.e., 132 KV line from Serchhip to Lunglei. The findings of the inspection are as follows: (1) The Ground Clearance of the lowest lying conductor was measured and it measured 1.36 m. As per Rule 77 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 the lowest Ground Clearance in respect of 132 KV line should be 6.3m. As such the said line was within the prescribed Ground Clearance and safe enough. (2) At the place of the accident of Sh. As such the said line was within the prescribed Ground Clearance and safe enough. (2) At the place of the accident of Sh. Lalsangpuia S/o Rokimi, Thenzawl the Ground Clearance is of 9.36m. The place of the accident is steep and taking measurement from the ground is the lowest lying lines, the Ground Clearance is 7.6m. 4. This report was submitted by the Assistant Electrical Inspector, Zuangtui, Aizawl to the E.O. to Chief Engineer, Power & Electricity Department, Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl vide letter dated 1st February, 2008. The aforesaid report was submitted before this Court along an affidavit filed on 29.2.2008 by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Power &. Electricity Department. 5. The respondent authorities filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 22nd May, 2008 stating inter alia, that the death of petitioner's son is not attributable to any negligence of the respondents. Para 5 of the counter affidavit contains the stand of the respondent authorities which is quoted below: 5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 2 of the writ petition, I say that the death of the son of the petitioner cannot be attributed to the negligence of the respondents. It is submitted that the dead body of the deceased person was found lying in the jungle near the 132 KV Line owned and maintained by the answering respondents. The said line has been constructed by the Department after proper survey and design of supporting towers to provide sufficient ground clearance as stipulated in Rule 77 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. Further, a periodic (pre-monsoon and post-monsoon) maintenance is carried out regularly since commissioning of the line. The Department used to shut down the line when such maintenance works are taken up in order to avoid any accident while cutting trees/branches near the said line. In the present case, it is believed that the deceased person had gone to the jungle to cut trees close to the 132 KV Line which might have perhaps touched the said line resulting in electrocution. But in the absence of any eyewitness it cannot be confirm that the deceased person came in contact with the line through the tree he had cut. The post mortem examination report does not confirm the cause of death as electrocution. But in the absence of any eyewitness it cannot be confirm that the deceased person came in contact with the line through the tree he had cut. The post mortem examination report does not confirm the cause of death as electrocution. Neither the Department have authorized the deceased nor had he informed the Department about his intention to cut the nearby tree. As such, there is no question of negligence on the part of the answering Respondents and the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. 6. The respondent authorities also denied that deceased was earning an income of Rs.1,35,000 per annum inasmuch as the petitioner has not disclosed the occupation of the deceased. The respondent authorities have also challenged the correctness of the income certificate and state that a man of 21 years old living in a village without any specific occupation or profession could not have an annual income of Rs.1,35,000. The respondent authorities denied that they have any liability towards the petitioner as the death of her son is not due to negligence on the part of the respondents. 7. The petitioner filed the rejoinder on 2.9.2008 wherein it is stated that the inspection was done without informing the petitioner and it was done by the staff of the Power and Electricity Department alone without associating any local person. Moreover, the aforesaid JE, Lalsangzuala was not working under the Khawiva Division, Lunglei during 2006, under whoso jurisdiction, the accident took place and as such, the aforesaid inspection report cannot be accepted as correct about the maintenance of the electrical line in the said area. Mr. Prusty, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the principle of strict liability can be applied to this case and the respondent-authorities may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner for the death of her son due to negligence of the respondents. For this purpose, he has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Ors. 2002 (1) SC 98 as well as on the case of Shri Lianzika v. State of Mizoram and Ors. decided by a Single Bench of this Court on 13.2.2007. 8. Per contra Mrs. For this purpose, he has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Ors. 2002 (1) SC 98 as well as on the case of Shri Lianzika v. State of Mizoram and Ors. decided by a Single Bench of this Court on 13.2.2007. 8. Per contra Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Government advocate submits that the petitioner did not inform the respondent authorities that nor son died due to electrocution and no complaint was made at any point of time before filing the writ petition alleging that the accident took place due to negligence of the respondent-authorities nor did she make any claim for compensation for the death of her son due to alleged electrocution. At the time of spot inquiry an inquest was conducted by the police but the respondent authorities were not informed or asked to be present. However, the Police A.S.I. who made the spot inquiry and conducted the inquest submitted a report (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) wherein it is stated that "the said deceased while cutting the young tree that the tree touched the line of 132 KV and as a result of which he was electrocuted". The said Police A.S.I made a prayer before the O.C of Serchhip Police Station, Serchhip that "an U.D. case may kindly be registered as the actual cause of death seems to be electrocution". As regard the annual income certificate (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), the learned Government Advocate submits that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not the authorized/competent person to issue the same and it cannot be accepted as a piece of valid evidence to prove the income of the deceased. 9. I have carefully gone through the pleadings made by the parties supported by the documents furnished by them. I have also considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. On going through the contentions made in the writ petition, I find no averment to the effect that any live wire was lying on the ground or any live wire was in a position not within the prescribed ground clearance or in a unsafe position, due to which, the petitioner's son got electrocuted. On going through the contentions made in the writ petition, I find no averment to the effect that any live wire was lying on the ground or any live wire was in a position not within the prescribed ground clearance or in a unsafe position, due to which, the petitioner's son got electrocuted. What is stated in the writ petition is that the electric line wire not properly maintained by the Power and Electricity Department of the Government of Mizoram and due to negligence on the part of Power and Electricity Department for maintenance of the said electric line in that area, the petitioner's son Lalsangpuia was electrocuted which eventually caused his death. At the same time, it is stated in para 2 of the petition that the petitioner's son died on 19.10.2006 at Thenzawl by electrocution while cutting the young tree. In the Police report (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), it is also similarly stated that "inquiry revealed that the cause of death was found due to electrocution. The said deceased while cutting the young tree that the tree touched the line of 132 KV and as a result of which he was electrocuted". The accident took place in the jungle as stated in the aforesaid police report. 10. In M.P. Electricity Board (supra), the Apex Court applied the principle of strict liability due to the admitted factual position that a workman of a factory while riding a bicycle on way from his factory rode over the live wire lying on the road unnoticed and without any premonition of the impending disaster awaiting him en route. The other case of Shri Lianzika (supra) is also a case where one insulator pin of an electric post was broken due to which the cable/wire slipped and came to rest on the cable/wire bracket causing leakage of current to the electricity post, which eventually electrocuted the deceased. The facts and circumstances of the present case are quite different inasmuch as in the instant case the petitioner's son went to the jungle, who cut the young tree and got electrocuted accidentally and died eventually for which no negligence can be attributed to the respondent authorities. The facts and circumstances of the present case are quite different inasmuch as in the instant case the petitioner's son went to the jungle, who cut the young tree and got electrocuted accidentally and died eventually for which no negligence can be attributed to the respondent authorities. The deceased himself was negligent in cutting the tree without being careful about the danger of 132 KV Line passing through the area and in absence of any allegation to the effect that the live wire was lying on the ground or hanging in a position easily touchable by anybody or below the prescribed ground clearance and unsafe enough; no negligence can be attributed to the respondent-authorities. In my considered view, the principle of strict liability would not be applicable to this case and no amount can be awarded as compensation to the petitioner. 11. The parties may, however, approach the appropriate civil court for claiming the compensation for which the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of time spent by her before this Court and get the delay, if any, condoned, at the time of filing the suit. The petitioner is also given an option, if she does not prefer to file a suit, to approach the State respondents for ex gratia amount as may be entitled by her as per the existing policy, if any, formulated by the Government. The civil court or the authority on being approached by the petitioner may decide the case/matter without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in this judgment. 12. The petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed with liberty to file a suit before the appropriate forum or pursue remedy before any appropriate authority. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.