Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 572 (GAU)

Mulan Dutta v. State of Assam and Ors.

2013-08-14

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2013
By filing this writ application under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a direction to the Assam State Electricity Board, in short, ASEB, to pay compensation on account of death of his wife, Rekha Dutta, who died an untimely death on 13.3.2006 due to electrocution because of negligence of the ASEB authority, leaving behind her husband, two daughters and one son. At the time of her death, she was 40 years old. She was a homemaker. 2. The facts, in a nut-shell, are that a high voltage electric line passes by the house of the petitioner. On 13.3.2006, around evening, the line was snapped and was in a tangled-up condition and in spite of being informed by the villagers, the staff of respondent No. 5 did not take any measure either to repair the line or to disconnect electricity supply. However, the petitioner's wife and their two daughters were not aware of the same. The two daughters were returning home from a religious village function at around 1:00 p.m. and they came in contact with the live-wire and hearing their shouts, the petitioner's wife rushed out only to suffer electric shock herself. She was immediately taken to the hospital but she was declared dead. An ejahar was lodged by the Gaonbura of Nagakhelia Gaon Panchayat before the Officer-in-Charge of the Dhemaji Police Station on the basis of which Dhemaji P.S. UD Case No. 5/2006 was registered. 3. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by ASEB and its successor company, namely, Upper Assam Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (UAEDCL). Apart from raising question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of not availing efficacious and adequate alternative remedy by way of filing a civil suit, it is stated that no information was received by the local ASEB/UAEDCL authorities regarding snapping or tearing-up of the electric conductor in the said village. As per report of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhemaji Electrical Sub-Division, the electric line in question was perfect till the night of 13.3.2006. The Senior Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam, Tezpur was informed about the accident by letter dated 14.3.2006. Two villagers also stated that nobody in that village informed the authority about the snapping of the electric wire. 4. Md. Giash Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the death of the wife of the petitioner due to electrocution is an admitted fact. Two villagers also stated that nobody in that village informed the authority about the snapping of the electric wire. 4. Md. Giash Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the death of the wife of the petitioner due to electrocution is an admitted fact. It is also not disputed by the respondents that the line was not snapped at all. The stand taken in the affidavit that line was in good condition till mid-night is not correct and such statement is made only for the purpose of this case. Learned counsel, in these circumstances, submits that there is no escape from the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the ASEB authorities in maintaining the electric line. Accordingly, he submits that the court may grant such compensation as deemed fit by this court. 5. Mr. D. Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel, ASEB very fairly submits that this court, on a number of occasions, had directed to pay compensation to the legal representatives of victims dying due to electrocution when the accident had occurred because of fault or negligence of ASEB. It is also submitted by him that by an Office Memorandum dated 22.12.2008, payment of compensation arising out of fatal electrical accident, in relation to persons who are not in employment of the Board, has been re-fixed and such memorandum envisages payment of Rs. 1.00 lakh, Rs. 1.50 lakhs and Rs. 1.00 lakh in respect of victims up to 20 years of age, above 20 years and up to 55 years of age and above 55 years of age, respectively, subject to claimant submitting documents as indicated therein. It is also submitted that there was no failure or negligence on the part of ASEB in the instant case in maintenance of the electric line. Relying on the statements made by Surya Gohain and Jogen Saikia, annexed as Annexure I and Annexure II of the affidavit, learned counsel submits that alleged snapping of electric-wire was not informed by anyone and, therefore, no compensation is called for in the instant case. 6. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 7. Although a period of 6 years have passed, the respondent-State has not filed any affidavit. It has also not placed on record the statutory report relating to the electrical accident. 8. 6. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 7. Although a period of 6 years have passed, the respondent-State has not filed any affidavit. It has also not placed on record the statutory report relating to the electrical accident. 8. The post mortem report annexed as Annexure IV shows that in the opinion of doctor, the cause of death was due to electric shock. Annexure III of the writ petition which is a report of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhemaji Electrical Sub-Division, also indicates that the wife of the petitioner died due to electrocution. While it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the line was snapped in the evening time and accordingly the villagers had informed the local office of ASEB at Dhemaji, the same is disputed by the ASEB authorities. However, that the electrical line had not snapped at all is not the stand of the respondents. It is not known on what basis in Annexure III of the affidavit, which is a 'Note' on the causes leading to the accident by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhemaji Electrical Sub-Division, it had been recorded that the electric line was quite perfect and was "healthy" till late at night and the accident had taken place at 1.00 p.m. It is in this context, the statements of Jogen Saikia and Surya Gohain seem to be out of place. While the incident took place in Nagakhelia Gaon, none of the aforesaid two persons are from the said village. While Surya Gohain is from village Kakuria Ahom Gaon, Jogen Saikia is from Jamuguri Koch Gaon. Who they are have not been explained in the affidavit and both of them claimed to have witnessed the occurrence at the identical time, at 7:50 a.m. At any rate, the said two statements can be best construed to have conveyed that death due to electrocution because of the snapped electric wire was not informed to the Dhemaji Electrical Sub-Division, either in writing or verbally. It does not say that the villagers did not inform about snapping of the electric line. Be that as it may, this court will not go into the disputed area as to when the line had snapped. 9. It is the duty of ASEB to keep the lines drawn at all times and to maintain that position. It does not say that the villagers did not inform about snapping of the electric line. Be that as it may, this court will not go into the disputed area as to when the line had snapped. 9. It is the duty of ASEB to keep the lines drawn at all times and to maintain that position. Materials on record do not indicate that there was any Act of God such as storm, etc., causing damage to the electric posts. There was not even a faintest attempt on the part of the respondents to throw light as to how the line could have been snapped. In these circumstances, very factum of snapping of electric lines and falling on the road resulting in a veritable death-trap, which indeed claimed a casualty, must be held to be because of negligence of ASEB authorities. 10. In view of the above determination, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner would be entitled to some compensation. Mr. Bhattacharyya has submitted that in some cases this court had granted compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs and in some cases Rs. 3.00 lakhs and there is no uniformity in the amount of compensation directed to be paid. He has submitted that this court has been directing payment of compensation as considered appropriate by the court. He, however, submits that as there is an Office Memorandum, this court may also direct payment of compensation in terms of the said Memorandum. 11. Considering the matter in its entirety, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to claim compensation by way of damages in an appropriate forum, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be sub-served if an amount of Rs. 2,25,000 is directed to be paid by the ASEB authorities to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. The said amount be paid within a period of 4 months from today. It is also directed that in the event of failure to pay compensation within the aforesaid period, interest @ 9% per annum will accrue till payment. 12. Considering the prayer made by Mr. Bhattacharyya, it is provided that ASEB authorities may deposit the amount before the Registry of this court with intimation to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The amount will be paid to the petitioner on being duly identified by the learned counsel of the petitioner. 13. 12. Considering the prayer made by Mr. Bhattacharyya, it is provided that ASEB authorities may deposit the amount before the Registry of this court with intimation to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The amount will be paid to the petitioner on being duly identified by the learned counsel of the petitioner. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. No cost.