Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1063 (GAU)

Sankar Roy v. State of Assam

2017-08-08

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. L.K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.D. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent AEDCL as well as MR. S.S Roy, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4. 2. The mother of the petitioner Mamata Roy died on 27.08.2009 due to electrocution when she went to a nearby pond to bring back the Faasi Jaal, which is a kind of fishing net that was set up in the pond for the purpose of catching fish. On the day of the accident on 27.08.2009 when the mother of the petitioner went inside the pond, she was electrocuted and as a consequence, she died on the spot. It is stated that the high voltage electrical line which passes over the said pond, had accidently got snapped and fell in the pond, as a result of which, the mother of the petitioner got electrocuted. 3. An FIR was lodged before the Golokganj Police Station as regards the aforesaid occurrence, which was registered as Golokganj PS UD Case No.26/2009. In the said police station case, a certificate had been issued stating that when the deceased had gone to the nearby pond to bring back the Faasi Jaal, she came in contact with a broken electric wire, as a result of which she died due to electrocution. The postmortem report which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition also reveals that the death was caused due to shock as a result of electrocution. 4. The Senior Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam has also filed an affidavit dated 22.11.2011, wherein an enquiry report had been annexed. As per the findings of the enquiry report, death was caused to the deceased when she came in contact with a live conductor and it was further opined that had appropriate and proper maintenance measure been taken for replacing the ageing overhead line, the accident resulting in the death of the deceased would not have taken place. In other words, the said report indicates that the death of the deceased was caused due to certain negligence in maintenance of the overhead line by the respondent AEDCL. 5. However, the AEDCL authorities filed an affidavit taking a stand that the overhead electricity line had got snapped due to heavy storm, which had occurred in the given place at the relevant point of time. 5. However, the AEDCL authorities filed an affidavit taking a stand that the overhead electricity line had got snapped due to heavy storm, which had occurred in the given place at the relevant point of time. But, however, the said stand remains unsubstantiated in view of the report of the Senior Electrical Inspector. 6. Mr. K.D Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent AEDCL has produced an Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, wherein it is provided that in case of deceased between the age of 20 to 55, the amount of compensation to be paid is rupees 2.5 lakhs. 7. In the instant case, it is noticed that the deceased was aged about 45 years, when the death due to electrocution took place. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that as it is an established position that the death of the deceased was caused due to certain negligence in maintaining the overhead electricity line by the respondent AEDCL and that the age of the deceased was about 45 years at the time of her death and as such, the appropriate compensation as payable under the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013 shall be applicable. 8. Accordingly, it is found that the respondent authorities are liable to pay Rs.2.5 lakhs to the next kin of the deceased Mamata Roy. In terms of the above, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that as the present writ petitioner is the son of the deceased Mamata Roy, there is no further requirement to establish the aspect as to whether the petitioner is the next of kin of the deceased and accordingly shall be paid an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs by the respondent AEDCL on account of death caused to his mother late Mamata Roy due to electrocution. 9. The aforesaid amount be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. it is further provided that in the event, the petitioner so desires, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for any further compensation that they may seek to obtain. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.