Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 317 (JHR)

Rajib Ranjan v. Madhuri Kumari

2012-03-01

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Reportable ----------By Court: The husband of respondent, Ramanuj Prasad, who was an Advocate's Clerk, when he was coming to the High Court he suffered shock because of the fall of 11000 Volt wire on the road and ultimately he died. A report was submitted in Kanke Police Station on the same day being Kanke P.S. U.D. Case No. 4 of 2001 on 30th March, 2001. The wife of the deceased, Ramanuj Prasad preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2025 of 2002, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 11th June, 2002 and it was observed that “as the matter requires determination by the respondents at first instance, the case be remitted to the Chairman, JSEB, who will determine both the issues relating to payment of damages and appointment of writ petitioner on compassionate ground within two months from the date of receipt of representation as may be preferred by the said petitioner”. 2. It appears that in pursuance of the direction of this Court contained in order dated 11th June, 2002 the representation of the petitioner was considered but admittedly no compensation was determined and in view of the further direction of this Court to consider the framing of the policies for providing compensation to the persons, who may suffer or otherwise injured due to such nature of accident, the J.S.E.B framed the policy and quantified the compensation to such victims. On the representation of the writ petitioner, which was decided before the said policy decision, it has been observed by the Chairman that “ it is accepted that authorities of State Electricity Board owes a duty of care to see that live wire is removed immediately and the power is switched off in such a natural calamities so as to make the public place safe for the visitors. It is also accepted that failure to do so will make the Board liable to pay damage for human life. It is also ordered that adequate resolutions be framed by the Board within a period of three months in light of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 AIR SCW 129 to decide such cases on uniform policy. The claim of Madhuri Kumari, thereafter be decided as per the regulations to be framed on priority basis preferably within a fortnight after the date of issue of such guidelines by the Board” . 3. The claim of Madhuri Kumari, thereafter be decided as per the regulations to be framed on priority basis preferably within a fortnight after the date of issue of such guidelines by the Board” . 3. Though, admittedly the Chairman of the Board directed to frame the policy to deal with the claim of compensation in the case of electrocution injuries but did not determine the quantum of compensation for the petitioner and deferred the issue till the policy is framed. Admittedly, on the date of actual cause of action i.e., on the date of death there was no policy and therefore in view of the direction of this Court given in W.P.( C) No. 2025 of 2004 vide order dated 11th June, 2002 the Chairman should have decided the quantum of compensation. However, the writ petitioner was not granted any compensation and contempt petition was preferred to this Court being Cont. (C) No. 892 of 2002, which was allowed vide order dated 26th March, 2003 by detailed order and the learned Single Judge consciously, knowing well the scope of jurisdiction under contempt proceedings observed that, it will be additional burden upon the writ petitioner if she be asked to file separate petition to agitate the question of quantum and the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter, directed the respondents to pay a total lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-(two lacs fifty thousand). It was further directed that the amount will be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which respondents will be liable to pay the interest @ 8% on such amount from the date of death of the husband of petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved against the order dated 26th March, 2003 passed in the said contempt petition no. 892 of 2002 this L.P.A. has been preferred by the Electricity Board. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award of compensation was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court while exercising contempt proceeding. It is also submitted that it is a disputed question of fact that to what extent the compensation could have been awarded. 892 of 2002 this L.P.A. has been preferred by the Electricity Board. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award of compensation was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court while exercising contempt proceeding. It is also submitted that it is a disputed question of fact that to what extent the compensation could have been awarded. It is submitted that in view of the policy decision which was taken subsequently vide policy dated 30th December, 2002 in such fatal accident due to snapping of live electric wire the compensation amount fixed is Rs. 20,000/-, therefore, beyond this no amount could have been awarded by the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that subsequent to that in the year 2006 another decision was taken and compensation amount has been enhanced from Rs. 20,000/-to Rs. 1,50,000/-in case of fatal accident due to snapping of electric wire. In view of the above, the compensation of the petitioner could not have been more than 20,000/-and even today the compensation provided for such eventuality is Rs. 1,50,000/-. 6. We have considered submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case. It is settled law that the writ jurisdiction is extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Court which is also equitable jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the power of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice may not be available to the High Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But we are of the view that, at the same time it is also settled law that when justice has been done, in that situation the appellate court should not interfere with the order so as to disturb the justice. In this case , in Writ Petition No. 2025 of 2002, the respondent was directed to determine the compensation, which the respondent did not do and deferred the matter till the policy is framed. The policy was framed subsequent to the cause of action and therefore, such lame excuse cannot absolve the respondents from their guilt of non-compliance of the order of this Court. 7. The policy was framed subsequent to the cause of action and therefore, such lame excuse cannot absolve the respondents from their guilt of non-compliance of the order of this Court. 7. Be that as it may, so far as the fault of the appellant in taking due are for electric lines is concerned that is not in dispute and so has been observed by the Chairman, Electricity Board itself in his decision taken on representation of the writ petitioner wherein it has been specifically observed that “ it is accepted that authorities of State Electricity Board owes a duty of care to see that live wire is removed immediately and the power is switched off in such a natural calamities so as to make the public place safe for the visitors”. “ It is also accepted that failure to do so will make the Board liable to pay damage for human life.” If the petitioner was not liable for any compensation then there was no question of deferring the matter for determining the compensation of the petitioner, even on the pretext of framing of guidelines by the Board for providing compensation. In view of the above reasons, so far as non-compliance of the order is concerned that is apparent. 8. It appears that though the order was passed in the contempt proceeding, but order was not passed without noticing this fact that for agitating about the quantum of compensation the petitioner could have been directed to file a fresh writ petition but that would have only multiplicity of the proceedings and if, the learned Single Judge himself had not converted the contempt petition into writ petition and proceeded to decide the matter and awarded lump sum of compensation Rs. 2,50,000/-, this order deemed to has been passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India irrespective of the fact that it was passed in the contempt proceeding. 9. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that what should have been the compensation to the writ petitioner, we may observe that learned Single Judge was also conscious of this fact and therefore, awarded the lump sum compensation and not proceeded to decides actual compensation. The lump sum compensation are awarded in a case where it is difficult to ascertain exact compensation and lump sum compensation is compensation near to exact compensation amount. The lump sum compensation are awarded in a case where it is difficult to ascertain exact compensation and lump sum compensation is compensation near to exact compensation amount. Therefore, award of the compensation in lump sum requires no actual determination loss and so has been done by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge also noticed the facts of the case of M.P. Electricity Board-Vs.-Shail Kumar reported in 2002 (2) SCC 162 , wherein a workman in factory aged about 37 years died in a similar situation in which Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs. 4.34 lacs. The husband of the writ petitioner was also aged about 38 years at the time of death and was similarly situated like said Jogendra Singh to whom compensation was granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board (Supra). Therefore, in that situation in our humble opinion the Board should not have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge on equitable as well as humanitarian ground where compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-has been awarded. At this juncture, we may observe that the policy decision of the Board to award compensation in structured formula itself is not the determination of liability of the Board because of the reasons that each compensation case is required to be decided according to the facts of the case and the loss suffered by the parties. We may also observe that compensation shown in Board's decision may be the amount of relief to be granted to the victim forthwith by the Board irrespective of the quantum claim of the claimant which can be proved by the claimant in accordance with law before appropriate forum. 10. Since, in this case the fact was not in dispute that the victim died because of the electrocution because of the falling of the heavy voltage electric wire on road and it was the duty of the electricity board to make proper arrangement for setting off the line immediately after its breaking down from the main line which has not been done and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that petitioner-respondent was rightly allowed compensation by the impugned order. The policy decision of the appellant taken in the year 2002 or 2006 is not the outer limit of the compensation for victim of such accident. 11. The policy decision of the appellant taken in the year 2002 or 2006 is not the outer limit of the compensation for victim of such accident. 11. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that even if the order was passed in contempt petition but after taking note of the fact that in stead of multiplying of the proceedings it will be appropriate to grant lump sum amount. The learned Single Judge has not committed any error of law. Therefore, this L.P.A. is dismissed. 12. The interim order passed on 8.2.2006 is vacated and the appellant is directed to pay compensation amount in the light of the direction of the learned Single Judge within a period of one month from today.