Dismissed

Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-Ii,M.v.v.N.L., Raebareli and Another v. Krishna Bahadur Singh

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2024/2390/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Permanent Lok Adalat order awarding Rs. 4 lakh for accidental death due to electrocution. The Court held the Lok Adalat correctly dismissed the petitioner's inquiry report as unreliable and found no infirmity in the compensation award.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the compensation order of the Permanent Lok Adalat is dismissed as it is bereft of merits.

Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22752

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2390 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-Ii,M.V.V.N.L., Raebareli And Another Respondent :- Krishna Bahadur Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- Ran Vijay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

In the light of proposed order, notice to respondent is dispensed with.

¶8

Present writ petition has been filed on behalf of Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Electricity Distribution Division-III, Lalganj, Raebareli, assailing the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility), Raebareli dated 16.05.2023, whereby claim made by the respondent has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent on account of accidental death of Ramesh Bahadur Singh.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a complaint was made by the respondent with regard to accidental death of his brother Ramesh Bahadur Singh, where on 05.11.2015 at about 8-9AM the deceased who was working in his fields which was were being irrigated through a tube well of Shiv Bahadur Singh. It is stated that an electric wire was loose and same was dangling over Ramesh Bahadur Singh when suddenly the said wire broke and fell upon the deceased due to which he sustained serious burn injuries and died on spot. It is stated that the entire body of the deceased was burnt and on hearing commotion raised, the villagers gathered and the local Police was also informed about the said incident.

¶10

After the said incident, Ramesh Bahadur Singh who received serious burn injuries was taken to hospital in Lalganj where attempts were made to save his life but unfortunately he succumbed to his injuries at 5.00PM in District Hospital, Raebareli. Post mortem was conducted on 06.11.2015 and in the postmortem it was reported that he had died due to burn injuries caused due to electrocution.

¶11

It is on account of aforesaid facts that the respondent moved an application to the petitioner for grant of compensation due to the negligence on account of which Ramesh Bahadur Singh has died. The petitioners rejected the said application stating that the deceased himself was responsible for the injuries caused to him and accordingly, rejected the representation for grant of compensation.

¶12

It is in the aforesaid facts that the respondent filed a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat. In support of the said claim oral and documentary evidence were adduced. The deceased at the time of death was about 45 years of age and was a bachelor and engaged in farming work. In support of the claim the respondent had adduced independent testimonies of Ashok Kumar Yadav - PW-2 and Vijay Pal, PW-3. Vijay Pal in his testimony has stated that the electricity line goes very close to the door near the pathway and the said electricity line was loose and was dangling over the said road when on 05.11.2015 at about 8.00AM the electric wire broke and fell upon Ramesh Bahadur Singh S/o Sukhdeo Singh who was standing there and due to which he sustained serious burn injuries and died. It is further stated that several complaints have been made to the Electricity authorities about the loose wire hanging over the said pathway and despite complaints having been made no efforts were made to rectify the same and it is due to which Ramesh Bahadur Singh (deceased) sustained serious burn injuries and died. Apart from the aforesaid witnesses an affidavit of Rinki Sharma, Gram Pradhan was also filed which also supported the case of respondent.

¶13

Opposing the said claim, it has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that an inquiry was got conducted by the orders of Director (Electricity Safety) on 24.09.2016. According to the said report on 05.11.2015, the deceased was attempting to rectify the fault in the Transformer by replacing HT Fuse. It is in the act of the deceased himself attempting to rectify the fault that he came with the contact of live wire and died due to electrocution. The deceased was not authorised to climb the electricity poll and to rectify the transformer and after being electrocuted he fell down and died due to the injuries sustained therein. The deceased himself was responsible for the said act and consequently the petitioners cannot be held to be negligent for the said act leading to death of deceased.

¶14

It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Permanent Lok Adalat duly examined the entire evidence including oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties. The Permanent Lok Adalat was of the considered view that there were sufficient material and evidence adduced by the claimant

¶15

in the form of independent testimonies of Ashok Kumar Yadav - PW-2, Vijay Pal, PW-3 and Rinki, where they have consistently held that the deceased died due to electrocution when the electric wire broke and fell upon the deceased due to which he received serious burn injuries and consequently died.

¶16

The Permanent Lok Adalat did not relied upon the inquiry report and evidence submitted by the petitioners. The inquiry report was prepared on 24.09.2016 which is after expiry of nearly 10 months from the incident. It is further noticed that there is no material to indicate that on what basis the said report was made and what was the evidence which can indicate that the deceased himself climbed on the electric poll to rectify the HT Fuse.

¶17

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the inquiry report submitted by the petitioners is extremely doubtful and in the present case there are several eye witnesses of the said incident and there was no reason for the Permanent Lok Adalat to disbelieve the testimonies of the eye witnesses produced by the claimant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat misdirected itself by not relying upon the inquiry report submitted by the petitioners to the effect that the deceased was himself responsible for his death. No other point has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid facts and evidence which was considered by the Permanent Lok Adalat, there is sufficient material to establish that cause of death of deceased was due to the damaged electricity line from which the deceased received serious burn injuries and died. There was no material or evidence to support the inquiry report tendered by the petitioners which is in variance with the claim made by the respondent and there was no witness to support the said inquiry report and hence the Permanent Lok Adalat did not rely upon the same.

¶20

Having considered the impugned judgment of the Permanent Lok Adalat this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the same requiring interference by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

The writ petition being bereft of merits is dismissed .

¶22

Order Date :- 14.3.2024/A. Verma

¶23

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-Ii,M.v.v.N.L., Raebareli and Another v. Krishna Bahadur Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-Ii,M.v.v.N.L., Raebareli and Another v. Krishna Bahadur Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Sajiwan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Transport Lucknow and Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Smt. Indu Pratha Kumari

Ram Manohar Singh Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya and 5 Others

Amar Jeet Kaur Vs Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Lucknow Division,Lko. and 3 Others

Raj Kishor Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Tularam Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others