Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 385 (GAU)

Lalrintluangi v. State of Mizoram

2022-04-08

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also heard Ms. Linda Fambawl, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Mr. R. Lalnunpuia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. 2. The facts and circumstances of the case as it has emerged from the submissions of the learned counsels and from the pleadings of the parties are briefly stated as follows:- The husband of the petitioner No.1 and the father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 Lt. Laltlankima who was serving as Constable in Mizoram Police and posted in the reserved line of Mamit district was detailed for law and order duty in connection with Marpara Case No.2/17 vide order No.SP/MMT/RO/L&O/118(A)/2013/704 dated 18/7/2017 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Mamit district. Following the issuance of the said order Late Laltlankima went on duty along with his colleagues to a jungle nearby Silsury village to find out two missing persons. While they were in the course of performing their assigned duty Lt. Laltlankima came in contact with a low height 11 KV power line and he was electrocuted and he died at the spot. His dead body was taken to Phuldungsei Primary health centre for post mortem after inquest over the same was conducted at the spot. As per the post mortem report a copy of which was annexed to the writ petition the cause of death of Lt. Laltkankima was due to accidental electrocution. After all that was done an enquiry report was submitted by one S.I. namely, C.Lalchhuanawma of Marpara Police Station on 27/7/2017 and the case was registered as MPR PS U/D Case No.1/2017. The report of the S.I stated that on receipt of information that one Laltlankima who was on law and order duty at Silsury has been electrocuted by electric wire which was hanging at about 3 feets high from the ground. He went to the place of occurrence and on reaching the same he found the dead body of Laltlankima and he conducted the inquest report immediately in the presence of two witnesses. And thereafter, he sent the dead body for post mortem examination, to ascertain the cause of death and, when the same was over, the dead body was handed over to the family members. Being aggrieved by the death of Lt. And thereafter, he sent the dead body for post mortem examination, to ascertain the cause of death and, when the same was over, the dead body was handed over to the family members. Being aggrieved by the death of Lt. Laltlankima the petitioners through their legal counsel served a legal notice dated 12/9/2018 to the respondents for payment of adequate compensation on the ground that death occurred due to the negligence of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the employees under them. The same was sent by registered post and it was duly received by the respondents. However, no positive response came forth, therefore the petitioners are here before this Court claiming that the only bread earner of the family had died due to negligence of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the employees under them therefore, adequate compensation should be given to them by the respondents. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 after receiving the notice filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition and in the affidavit it is stated that after the information regarding the electrocution of Lt. Laltlankima came to their knowledge, one Er.Liansangvunga, Sr. Executive Engineer was deputed on 24/7/2017 to make enquiry and as per his finding the village council of Silsury West excavated the earth near a double pole of 11 KV line for construction of Bazar building at Silsuri under NREGS and this excavation had caused the electric post to bend and that in turn made the line to hang very low. It is also stated that the Department was not aware of these facts and had it come to their knowledge corrective measures could have been taken in time. Therefore, the accident was not because of their negligence. 4. After the said affidavit was filed, the petitioner impleaded the RD Department and village council authority of Silsury village. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the village council by the President of the council and in his affidavit the President stated that the village council of Silsury did not make any earth excavation near the double 11 KV line for construction of Bazar under NRGES. He also stated that the village council was never given the work for construction of bazaar building at Silsury under NRGES as stated by the Sr. Executive Engineer in his report. He also stated that the village council was never given the work for construction of bazaar building at Silsury under NRGES as stated by the Sr. Executive Engineer in his report. The President of the village council further stated that the only reason for the 11 KV line was hanging very low was due to poor maintenance of the same by the Department and the village council has no responsibility in any way. 5. The RD Department which was also impleaded as respondent Nos. 8 to 10 also filed an affidavit and in that it is stated that, as per the report of District Local Administrator Officer, Mamit, the construction was done by Silsury East Village Council under IBBF (BADP). Along with the affidavit a letter of the Deputy Commissioner Mamit district dated 12/7/2016 addressed to the Chairman, Village Level Implementing Committee Silsury West Phaileng RD block informing that a sum of Rs.15,19,490/- has been released for execution of the work under IBBF (BADP) at Silsury one of which is construction of bazaar shed/market shed 2 Nos. was annexed. 6. The learned counsel of the petitioners submitted that as per Regulation 58 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety And Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 which is also applicable in the State of Mizoram, it is provided that the lowest conductor of over head lines for lines of voltage exceeding 650 Volts but not exceeding 33 KV is 6.1. metres, therefore, the power line which we are concerned with in this case which is of 11 KV should also have been hanging with ground clearance of at least 6.1. metres, but as per the enquiry report submitted by the Police and the Sr. Executive Engineer of the department, the power line was found to be hanging with ground clearance of only 3 feet. The learned counsel further submitted that Regulation 12(1) of the same Regulation of 2010 also provides that all electricity supply lines should be installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property. However, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the employees under them have failed to maintain the required height of the electric line in question due to negligence therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for the loss they have suffered due the untimely demise of their father and husband. However, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the employees under them have failed to maintain the required height of the electric line in question due to negligence therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for the loss they have suffered due the untimely demise of their father and husband. The learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to the judgment of this Court dated 7/2/2020 passed in W.P(C) 132/2018. The relevant paragraphs being paragraphs 9 and 10. Contents of the two paragraphs are reproduced here below:- “9. I have considered the submissions of both the learned counsels, the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant law. There is no dispute on the claim of the petitioner that he suffered from electric burn due to his accidental contact with a loosely hanging electric supply line passing over the building of Smt. Lianmawii, w/o Zosangliana on 13.11.2012. The fact that the electric wire was hanging loosely over the building of Smt. Lianmawii, w/o Zosangliana is also not in dispute and in fact it is supported by the report of Mamit Police Station. The only dispute of fact raised by the respondents is that the owner of the building where the incident happened had vertically extended her building after the electric supply line passing over her building was installed and that had reduced the distance between the roof top of the building and the electric wire. This contention or dispute of fact raised by the respondents has no basis and it is illogical and unreasonable. If the building was extended vertically it would have taken at least months and not few days. Therefore, it could not have escape the view of the neighbours including the employees of the respondents. If it does it would only show their lack of vigilance. Therefore, I find this ground of opposing the claim of the petitioner illogical, unreasonable and futile. Moreover, reading together of the provisions of the regulation shows that an overhead line should not cross over an existing building is the rule and allowing of such crossing when there is no alternative or is unavoidable is the exception. Therefore, the electricity supplier i.e. the respondents in this case are duty bound to have periodic inspection of such lines crossing over the buildings of people to ensure safety of human beings. Therefore, the electricity supplier i.e. the respondents in this case are duty bound to have periodic inspection of such lines crossing over the buildings of people to ensure safety of human beings. It is the primary duty of the respondents to ensure safety. An electric wire over 22 somebody’s building is expected to be insulated even if it is at the prescribed height. Any prudent mind would have done so taking into account the risk involved. In fact, in this case, it has been submitted that on 13.07.2012 a similar incident had happened at the same place in which a boy got burned by the same electric wire and for that a report was made to the Police Station and pursuant thereto the Police submitted a report to the concerned authorities. Further, it has also been stated that complaints were submitted to the officers of the respondents regarding the incident. Had prompt and appropriate action been taken by the respondents the unfortunate incident in which the petitioner got electric burn on 13.11.2012 could have been avoided. The submission of the learned Government Advocate that it is doubtful that the two incidents happen at the same place because of the mentioned of different names of the owner of the house where the incident occurred in the documents filed by the petitioner in my considered view, holds no water because overall reading of the two reports of the Police regarding the two incidents and certificate issued by the Village Council shows that both the incidents happened at the same place only. Minor discrepancies can be ignored as all the documents filed by the petitioner has overwhelmingly indicated that the two incidents happened at the same place. Moreover, for overhead electric supply lines passing populated localities, the supplier of electricity owes a duty to the consumers and the public at large to be vigilant and also to be prompt in action. In this case, it is a case of both negligence and lethargy. It is for the respondents to ensure that everyman in the line of duty performs his duty or is attending to the call of duty. The unfortunate incident had happened because of the negligence of the employees of the 23 respondents and for that the respondents are vicariously liable. It is a fact that the life of the young boy will never be the same again. The unfortunate incident had happened because of the negligence of the employees of the 23 respondents and for that the respondents are vicariously liable. It is a fact that the life of the young boy will never be the same again. The Doctor had certified that he is suffering from 85% disability. Money can never repay the loss he had suffered and he will continue to suffer in life. The physical and mental agony that he has gone through and he will continue to go through all his life is something that can never be adequately compensated. It is surprising that the respondents have not extended any financial help or assistance in any form when the petitioner has gone through so much of suffering because of the incident. He had been to hospital several times and his documents show that he had spent so much for his treatment and he will still need to spend in the days to come. One can be sure that the expenditure shown is only which can be supported with documents. Besides this, the petitioner’s parent’s must have spent much more. Therefore, in a welfare State like ours, the respondents should have readily extended at least some financial assistance. It is true that this petition was filed after 5 years had passed since the date of the incident but the respondents instead of taking shelter under the delay of filing the petition should ask themselves why they should have kept quiet for so long when the petitioner was going through so much suffering due to this negligence. In writ proceedings, limitation of time does not strictly apply. Even if it were to apply, the facts and circumstances of the case are sufficient enough reasons for condonation of delay. Further, it is true that the petitioner could have made a more comprehensive claim through Civil Suit but that itself does not bar this Court in 24 exercising writ jurisdiction in this kind of cases. This has been the accepted principle of law and I need not refer to any particular judgment or judgments. 10. Further, it is true that the petitioner could have made a more comprehensive claim through Civil Suit but that itself does not bar this Court in 24 exercising writ jurisdiction in this kind of cases. This has been the accepted principle of law and I need not refer to any particular judgment or judgments. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case which are well supported by documents filed by the petitioner, the conclusions drawn and the reasons given for the same, and the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases including in the cases cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had suffered the electric burn over his body which led to his physical disability of 85% due to the negligence of the respondents and their employees, therefore, taking into account his age and the extent of suffering and treatment he had gone through and will continue to go through during the life ahead of him, at least a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs should be paid to him as compensation. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Out of 25 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs should be kept as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank in the name of the petitioner, till the time he attends the age of adulthood. The rest of the amount may be given to his guardian i.e his mother who shall use the same in the best interest of the petitioner. Writ petition stands disposed.” The learned counsel of the petitioners also referred to the judgment of a Division bench of this Court passed in WA 21/2017. 7. On the quantum of the compensation, the learned counsel of the petitioner submitted that it can be either a lump sum amount or it can be calculated by applying multiplier method as directed in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , paragraph 42. Contents of the paragraph are reproduced here below:- 42. Contents of the paragraph are reproduced here below:- 42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below :- “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M- 16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 8. Ms. Linda Fambawl, learned Government Advocate submitted that as stated in the affidavit of the respondents the village council Silsury village had excavated earth near the pole on which 11 KV line was hanging and the same had caused the line to hang very low but the same was not brought to the knowledge of the respondents. Had it been brought to their notice, they would have quickly swung into action and take appropriate measures. But since that was not done the unfortunate accident had happened. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the respondents. Further, the learned Government Advocate also submitted that when a claim is made on the basis of negligence on the part of the respondents, the petitioners are required to prove negligence. But in this case, that has not been done. So no compensation can be awarded. In support of her submissions, the learned Government Advocate referred to the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of :- (1) SDO Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd and Others vs Timudu Oram reported in (2005) 6 SCC 156 the relevant being paragraph 6. Contents of the paragraph is given here below:- “6. In support of her submissions, the learned Government Advocate referred to the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of :- (1) SDO Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd and Others vs Timudu Oram reported in (2005) 6 SCC 156 the relevant being paragraph 6. Contents of the paragraph is given here below:- “6. In Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and others (supra) with which case these appeals were listed for hearing but could not be heard for want of service this Court took the view that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and were not fit cases for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was held that actions in tort and negligence were required to be established initially by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of electric transmission line belonging to the appellant had snapped and the deceased had come into contact with it and died by itself was not sufficient for awarding compensation. The Court was required to examine as to whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence on the part of the appellants, as a result of which the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the defence raised and the denial by the appellants in each of the cases, the appellants deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission line and yet the wires had snapped because of the circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties. Such disputed questions of fact could not be decided in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That the High Court could not come to the conclusion that the defence raised by the appellants had been raised only for the sake of it and there was no substance in it. In para 6 it was observed thus:- "6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In para 6 it was observed thus:- "6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants." The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to Appellant 1 had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence or the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No.5229 of 1995." (2) Nivedita Sharma vs Cellular Operators Association of India and Others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337- Paragraphs 15 & 16. Contents of the relevant paragraphs are reproduced here below:- “15. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No.5229 of 1995." (2) Nivedita Sharma vs Cellular Operators Association of India and Others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337- Paragraphs 15 & 16. Contents of the relevant paragraphs are reproduced here below:- “15. In the judgments relied upon by Shri Vaidyanathan, which, by and large, reiterate the proposition laid down in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, it has been held that an alternative remedy is not a bar to the entertaining of writ petition filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order under challenge is wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the statute is under challenge. 16. It can, thus, be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. However, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. Of Taxes and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field.” 9. Further, the learned Government Advocate submitted that there is an alternative remedy available through the Civil Court which is adequate therefore, no compensation need be awarded through this writ petition. 10. From the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and their affidavits what has emerged is that there is no dispute on the fact that the victim was serving as Police Constable and he was on assigned duty when the incident which led to his death occurred. And the other fact which is undisputed and most important is, that the victim was electrocuted by power line of 11 KV which was hanging only about 3 feet above the ground and the power line belongs to the respondents. As per the provisions of regulation 12 read with regulation 58 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety And Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 already cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner, a power line of 11 KV must have 6.1. As per the provisions of regulation 12 read with regulation 58 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety And Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 already cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner, a power line of 11 KV must have 6.1. metres ground clearance and it is the duty of the Department, Corporation, Company or licensee of such line to maintain the same so that the lives of human beings and animals are not endangered. The two provisions of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety And Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 are reproduced here below:- “12. General safety requirements, pertaining to construction, installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric supply lines apparatus: (1) All electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient rating for power insulation and estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength for the duty cycle which they may be required to perform under the environmental conditions of installation, and shall be constructed, installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property. 58. Clearance above ground of the lowest conductor of overhead lines:- (1) No conductor of an overhead line, including service lines, erected across a street shall at any part thereof be at a height of less than- (i) For lines of voltage not exceeding 650-5.8. metres Volts. (ii) For lines of voltage exceeding 650 Volts but not exceeding 33 KV – 6.1. metres.” 11. The above given provisions of the Regulation, 2010 makes it clear that they are mandatory therefore, the respondents must put up the line above 6.1. metres and maintained the same at all times so that human lives and animals are not put to danger. Maintenance requires at all times vigilante and remaining active so that timely actions can be taken. The owners of such power line cannot depend on others information alone. For to do so it may lead to such unfortunate incidents as in this case. The facts and circumstances clearly shows the negligence of the respondents. To put it differently the negligence of the respondents is writ large on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the same need no further prove. For to do so it may lead to such unfortunate incidents as in this case. The facts and circumstances clearly shows the negligence of the respondents. To put it differently the negligence of the respondents is writ large on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the same need no further prove. Further, the claim of the respondents that the pole on which the power line runs had bended due to excavation of earth nearby for construction of bazaar building is doubtful because the village council who are alleged to have done so through their affidavit has denied the same. 12. Taking all these into accounts, I am of the considered view that the unfortunate incident which led to the death of Lt. Laltlankima was due to the negligence of the respondents and the employees under them. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 13. Now on the quantum of compensation to be paid, the fact that the deceased was a Police Constable and was earning a sum of Rs.30,631 per month at the time of his death has to be taken into account while working out the same. Further, the fact that Lt. Laltlankima died at a young age of 38 years leaving behind his young wife and four children who are still very young and, in his absence they have suffered not only monetary loss but also loss of love and affection has to be taken into account. All of a sudden, life for the petitioners have taken a drastic turn as they have been left all alone by the only bread earner. It appears from the submission of the learned counsels that no ex-gratia payment or any benefit for the death of their loved one while on duty has been paid to the petitioners by the Government. Taking all these into account, I am of the view that the compensation to be paid in this case should be worked out by partly following the multiplier method given in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma’s case and directed to be followed by all Claim Tribunals and Courts, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and Others by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the time of his death the deceased was 38 years as given in the post mortem report and this has not been disputed. At the time of his death the deceased was 38 years as given in the post mortem report and this has not been disputed. Therefore, the multiplier would be 15 as per the judgment given above. As such, the compensation payable to the petitioners would be as follows:- Monthly pay of the deceased 30631 x 12 =3,67,572 is to be divided into 6 shares since the deceased had 5 dependants in the family. And thereafter, the total sum which constitutes the share of the petitioners should be multiplied by multiplier 15 and the sum arrive at is what the petitioners are entitled to as compensation. In figures; Rs.30631(monthly pay of the deceased) x 12(months) =3,67,572 ÷ 6(number of the family members including the deceased himself) =61,262 x 5 (the petitioners) =306310 x 15 (the multiplier) =4594650. 14. Accordingly, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 particularly respondent No.2 are hereby directed to pay the compensation as worked out herein above, to the petitioners within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are still minors, their shares of the compensation be deposited in fixed deposit accounts in their names. The compensation amount should be equally divided among the petitioners. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed off.