Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 597 (ORI)

Dinabandhu Gouda v. Chairman, GRIDCO

2015-10-16

B.R.SARANGI

body2015
JUDGMENT Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J. - The petitioner, who is owner of she-buffaloes, has filed this application seeking for a direction to opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs1,00,000/- for the death of three she-buffaloes due to electrocution. 2.The short fact of the case, in hand, is that when the petitioner’s son was taking three she-buffaloes for grazing on the village road, due to the negligence of the opposite parties, live electric wire snapped on three she-buffaloes, who died instantenously at the spot on 18.10.1998 at about 6.30 a.m., as a result of which a case was lodged in the Aska Police Station bearing Aska P.S. Case lNo.157 of 1998, which was registered under Section 258/427, I.P.C. The police took up investigation and examined the witnesses and owner of the she-buffaloes. During investigation, the I.O. found that due to negligence of the Lineman, who was in-charge of the electric line, Babanpur, such mishap took place and charge sheet No.179 of 1998 was submitted against the line man under Section 285/427 I.P.C. to stand his trial in the Court of law. The police paper shows that the death of the she-buffaloes was due to electrocution. In the post-mortem, which was conducted on the dead bodies of those three she-buffaloes, it was pointed out that the cause of death was due to heavy electric shock. Hence a claim of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been made for the death of the three she-buffaloes due to electrocution. 3.Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. M. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stated that from the investigation caused by the I.O. pursuant to the FIR under Section 285/427 I.P.C. read with Post Mortem report, it appears that the death of thre she-buffaloes was caused due to heavy electric shock and such mishap took place due to the negligence on the part of the authority and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as claimed. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment in Nalini Pradhan and others v. Chief Executive Officer, CESCO and others, 2014 (I) OLR 546 . 4.Per contra, Mr. S.C. Dash, learned counsel for opposite parties, stated that the writ petition is not maintainable in law and as there was no laches or negligence on the part of the opposite parties, they are not liable to the compensation. 4.Per contra, Mr. S.C. Dash, learned counsel for opposite parties, stated that the writ petition is not maintainable in law and as there was no laches or negligence on the part of the opposite parties, they are not liable to the compensation. He further submitted that since disputed questions of fact are involved, this Court should not interfere with this writ application. It is stated that in stead of approaching the authority, the petitioner has directly approached this Court by filing the present writ application and, therefore, the claim made by the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment in Jamuna Das and others v. Chief Executive Officer, CESU and others (W.P. (C) No.7453 of 2008 disposed of on 16.02.2009); Haripada Huali v. Chief Executive Officer, CESU and others (W.P. (C) No.906 of 2009 disposed of on 20.01.2009); Ashok Kumar Behea and another v. Chief Executive Officer (Administration), CESU and another (W.P. (C) No.5526 of 2008 disposed of on 04.02.2009); Jagdish Panigrahi and another v. The Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.), Southern Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and another (W.P. (C) No.8746 of 2006 disposed of on 28.01.2009); Abhimanyu Muduli and ohers v. Chief Executive Officer, CESCO and others (W.P.(C) No.4654 of 2004 disposed of on 10.11.2006), Kumari Rita @ Gita Sahoo v. GRID Corporation and others (OJC No.11105 of 2006 disposed of on 30.10.2008), wherein reference has been made in S.D.O., Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Ors. V. Timudu Oram, AIR 2005 SC 3971 , Chairman Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Ors. V. Smt.Sukamani Das and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 3412 and West Bengal Electricity Board & Ors. V. Sachin Banerjee & Ors, AIR 2000 SC 3629 . 5.On the basis of the facts pleaded above, the short question which falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation as claimed in the writ application due to the death of three she-buffaloes on electrocution. 6.The petitioner is the owner of three she-buffaloes. V. Sachin Banerjee & Ors, AIR 2000 SC 3629 . 5.On the basis of the facts pleaded above, the short question which falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation as claimed in the writ application due to the death of three she-buffaloes on electrocution. 6.The petitioner is the owner of three she-buffaloes. His son took them for grazing and while they were grazing in the road side land, came in contact with the live electric wire and breathed their last due to electrocution, which is substantiated pursuant to the investigation caused by the Police and subsequent post mortem done by the Doctor, who opined that the death was caused due to heavy electric shock. The cause of death of the she-buffaloes due to electrocution is not a dispute. But the only question that is to be considered is whether such death was due to the negligence on the part of the authority in maintaining the live electric wire or not. From the investigation pursuant to the FIR lodged, it appears that since the death of three she-buffaloes was caused due to snapping of the conductor, that ipso facto indicates that there is non-maintenance of the electric apparatus by the competent authority which they are obliged to do under law. That itself amounts to negligence on the part of the authority in maintaining the live electric wire, which ultimately caused the death of the three she-buffaloes. Due to death of the three she-buffaloes, which was the source of earning for the petitioner, the petitioner is deprived of maintaining his livelihood. Consequently, the petitioner is deprived of leading a decent life, which affects the right to life and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7.Reliance placed is on S.D.O., Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra), Chairman Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra),West Bengal Electricity Board (supra) and in Kumari Rita @ Gita Sahoo (supra), wherein the apex Court held that this kind of writ petition raises disputed questions of fact and therefore cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. As to whether the opposite party-company has committed any negligence or not, as to what is the extent of disability and whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the victim are the basic questions to be considered after assessing evidence by appropriate authority/Court. As to whether the opposite party-company has committed any negligence or not, as to what is the extent of disability and whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the victim are the basic questions to be considered after assessing evidence by appropriate authority/Court. Therefore, the power of writ jurisdiction in the present case should not be exercised. 8.So far as the cases in Abhimanyu Muduli (supra), Jagdish Panigrahi (supra), Ashok Kumar Behera (supra), Haripada Huali (supra), Jamuna Das (supra) are concerned, the petitioners in those cases, without approaching the concerned authority, for mitigating their grievance approached this Court for issuance of writ to the opposite parties for award of compensation and that apart several disputed questions of facts were involved in those cases which cannot be adjudicated in those writ petition. Therefore, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the authority for consideration of the grievance of the petitioner for grant of adequate compensation. The contentions raised by learned counsel for opposite parties referring to the judgments mentioned supra, are not in dispute. But question remains for consideration in the present case being germen to the fact that due to negligence of electricity authority whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation, this fact is telltale on the basis of the investigation caused by the police and subsequently, on the basis of the post mortem report submitted by the competent authority, namely, the veterinary surgeon. If the death has occurred due to electrocution, by snapping of live electric conductor that itself indicates that due to the negligence on the part of the authority in maintaining the live electric line, the conductor snapped resulting in the death of three she-buffaloes, which is established on the basis of the post mortem report submitted by the veterinary surgeon. On perusal of paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party nos. 2 to 4, it appears that a cock and bull story has been made out in order just to create a confusion that the death had occurred not because of electrocution but because of fighting between two she-buffaloes and due to push and pull of the electric poll, the conductor was snapped and as such there is no negligence on the part of the authority whatsoever. Assuming for the sake of argument but without admitting that due to push and pull of the she-buffaloes, is sufficient to indicate that the live electric wire was not maintained properly, which attributes negligence on the part of the authorities and thus, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation. 9.In Nalini Pradhan (supra), this Court has already considered the various judgments of the apex Court by referring to M.P. Electricity Board v. Shall Kumar and others, AIR 2002 SC 551 , Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 , Gujurat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, AIR 1987 SC 1690 and Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 485 .Taking into consideration those judgment, this Court in Nirmal Nayak and others v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and another, 2005 (II) OLR 389 held that in exercise of power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India this Court can grant compensation, if the death has occurred due to electrocution. 10.In Executive Engineer, Electricity (M & RE) Division, Awanipura, Anantanagar v. Mohammad Ashraf Bhat, AIR 1999 J & K, 137, wherein the High Court in a case of death due to electric shock, held that with regard to the claim for compensation and employment to the son of the deceased, the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and deal with it appropriately. 11.In M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151 , the apex Court held that the writ petition, for compensation is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellants contended that while the negligence aspect has been dealt with under penal laws already, the claim for compensation cannot but be left to be adjudicated by the civil lawa dn thus the Civil Court’s jurisdiction ought to have been invoked rather than by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants contended that while the negligence aspect has been dealt with under penal laws already, the claim for compensation cannot but be left to be adjudicated by the civil lawa dn thus the Civil Court’s jurisdiction ought to have been invoked rather than by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The apex Court observed that this plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition though advanced at the initial stage of the submissions but subsequently the same was not pressed and as such the apex Court need not detain themselves on that score, expecting however recording that the law Courts exists for the society and they have an obligation to meet the social aspirations of citizens since law Courts must also respond to the needs of the people. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation due to death of the three she-buffaloes which was the source of livelihood for such type of poor people. 12.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, referring to the ratio of the decisions mentioned supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should be paid compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- (Seventy Five Thousand) for the death of three she-buffaloes as claimed in the writ application with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of death of the three she-buffaloes till the payment and this Court directs accordingly. The amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. 13.With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs. Petition allowed in part.