Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2385 (JHR)

Mamataz Khatun v. State of Jharkhand

2018-10-28

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2018
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the Respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board is not present. State is a formal party though represented by learned counsel for the State during hearing. 2. Writ petition has been preferred by the widow of the deceased Jubedul Sheikh @ Rajesh Sheikh seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- and employment on compassionate ground on the basis that the deceased had died due to electric shock caused by High Voltage naked electric wire while doing the labour work. Amrapara P. S. Case No. 58 of 2006 was instituted by the brother of the deceased under Sections 288, 337, 338, 304A of the Indian penal Code implicating the person upon whose house the construction was being carried out. F.I.R contains allegation of wilful hazardous and negligent act on the part of Bhola Bhagat. 3. Police after investigation also found the case true against Bhola Bhagat as per statements made at Para-18 of the first counter affidavit of respondent Board. Respondent-Board has denied liability stating that new construction undertaken by Bhola Bhagat was not intimated to the office of Jharkhand State Electricity Board at Amrapara at any point of time. He had engaged labourers and Raj Mistri like the deceased for erecting Iron Frame for construction of a concrete pillar. While erecting Iron Frame with Iron Rods over the said construction of Bhola Bhagat, Iron Rod pillar accidently touched 11 K.V electric line which was at a distance of 6 to 8 ft. from the place of construction being carried out over the house of Bhola Bhagat. As a result, Rajesh Sheikh fell down and was declared dead. Bhola Bhagat never reported the accident to Jharkhand State Electricity Board office at Amrapara. The over head line of Sigharshi Military Base is passing through Amrapara by the side of Bhola Bhagat’s land at a distance of 6-8 ft. since long. It was the sole responsibility of Bhola Bhagat to remain present and take all necessary precaution during the erection of long iron ring frame for construction of concrete pillar over his house. 4. Respondents have also enclosed the scheme of Board contained in office order no. 1119 dated 25.9.2006 (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit). since long. It was the sole responsibility of Bhola Bhagat to remain present and take all necessary precaution during the erection of long iron ring frame for construction of concrete pillar over his house. 4. Respondents have also enclosed the scheme of Board contained in office order no. 1119 dated 25.9.2006 (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit). Under this scheme, compensation is payable to the outsiders in case they are electrocuted causing death or injuries due to snapping of live electric wire maintained and operated by Jharkhand State Electricity Board at the prescribed rates. Whether the injuries were minor or major depends upon the certificate of Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon of the district where the accident occurred. Under Clause 4 thereof, compensation shall be paid in cases where the reason for accident has been established as negligence on the part of the officers/staffs of the Board in operating and maintaining the electric lines in Transmission, Supply and the Distribution system and proper recovery shall be made from the officer/staff concerned. For speedy disposal of the compensation cases, Enquiry Committee was constituted by the earlier notification no. 1417 dated 23rd December, 2002 comprising General Manager/General Manager- cum-Chief Engineer of the concerned area as Chairman, Electrical Superintending Engineer, Deputy Director (Personnel)/Personnel Officer and Deputy Director(Accounts) of the concerned area as Members. This committee is to enquire into the accident and find out the facts and suggest remedial measures to prevent such accidents in future. The committee would also examine whether Board’s employees are responsible for the accident. While undertaking inquiry, committee is to examine the documents enumerated at Para-6 of the notification. As per Clause-7, compassionate appointment cannot be given to the wards/dependents of the deceased on this count. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no inquiry by a duly constituted committee has been undertaken in order to establish the veracity of the claim and whether officers/staffs of the Board were found negligent. The claim has been straightway denied. Therefore, it is not proper in the eye of law. 6. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the relevant facts borne from the pleadings on record as noticed hereinabove. Construction over the house of Bhola Bhagat was undertaken without any intimation to the Board and neither was the accident reported to the Board by Bhola Bhagat. 6. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the relevant facts borne from the pleadings on record as noticed hereinabove. Construction over the house of Bhola Bhagat was undertaken without any intimation to the Board and neither was the accident reported to the Board by Bhola Bhagat. Allegations contained in the F.I.R are directed against Bhola Bhagat and the case was also found true against Bhola Bhagat. Over head wire of 11 K.V was crossing Amrapara which was at the distance of 6 to 8 ft. from the construction being carried out over the house of Bhola Bhagat. Accident occurred due to iron rod touching 11 K.V line in course of construction undertaken by labourers and Raj Mistri i.e., deceased. These facts do not stand refuted by the petitioner either by any rejoinder . Respondents have categorically taken a stand that there was no negligence on the part of the Board or its officers neither was any intimation to the Board for construction being carried out. The incident occurred due to accidental touching of 11 K.V wire by iron frame on the part of the deceased and other labourers who also sustained injuries. The nature of the accident described in the F.I.R was found true by the police as against Bhola Bhagat. On the face of it, it did not point out any negligence on the part of the Board either. In such circumstances, when the incidence and its subsequent reporting to the police has been made, the contention of the petitioner that the matter was not inquired by a committee, losses any significance. As such, respondent board cannot be made liable for any compensation due to death of the petitioner’s husband since negligence on the part of the Board or its officers have not been prima facie established. The claim for compassionate appointment is also not tenable in view of the specific condition at Clause-7 of the scheme 2006 (Annexure-A). As such, I do not find any merit in this writ application, it is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.