Dismissed

Vidyut Vitran Division Ist Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Thru. Executive Engin. and Another v. Ramroop

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2024WRIC/2506/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Permanent Lok Adalat order awarding Rs. 6 lakhs compensation to a claimant for injuries sustained due to the petitioner's negligence. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the finding of negligence based on the Electricity Safety Department report and denying review of the compensation quantum.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat was affirmed.

Vidyut Vitran Division Ist Madhyanchal Vidyut… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22904

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2506 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vidyut Vitran Division Ist Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Thru. Executive Engin. And Another Respondent :- Ramroop Counsel for Petitioner :- Ran Vijay Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner who has argued the said matter for admission.

¶6

The order assailed in the present writ petition is dated 10.8.2023 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, District Hardoi in case No.24 of 2020 where the claim preferred by the claimant / respondent has been allowed and compensation of Rs.6 lakhs has been granted for the injuries suffered by the claimant where he has lost two arms and suffered serious burn injuries on his body.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/claimant Ram Roop is a resident of Gram panchayat - Datapur, Mallawan, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi and is a farmer. On 27.6.2019 when he was working at his fields where 11 KVA line passed over the said field and he came in contact with the stay wire due to which he suffered serious injuries on his head and both his arms were severed and immediately he was taken to local Primary Health Centre from where looking to his worsening condition he was referred to King Georges Medical University, Lucknow.

¶8

Considering the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the respondent the police was also informed of the said incident on 2.7.2019 and request was made to the petitioners to pay adequate compensation looking into the injuries. It seems that despite waiting for sufficient time when they did not hear anything from the petitioners with regard to grant of compensation he had filed a claim before Permanent Lok Adalat, Hardoi. The said claim was filed through wife of the injures. It was stated that the injured had suffered 80 percent burn injuries and also had lost his arms and due to the aforesaid disabilities it was difficult for him to even continue with his daily routine and he could no longer work in the fields from which he was deriving his livelihood. It was stated that due the said incident he suffered mentally and physically and his life became extremely difficult which is merely on account of the negligence of the petitioners and, therefore, prayed that he should be adequately compensated.

¶9

Notices were issued to the petitioner who put in appearance before the Permanent Lok Adalat. They had denied the allegations made by the claimant. They even denied occurrence of the said incident and stated that the said incident has been stage managed by the injured.

¶10

With regard to the same incident Electricity Safety Department of the petitioner had also conducted their inquiry wherein it was confirmed that stay wire which supports the pylons had come in contact with the claimant, who had received the said injuries. The report of the Electricity Safety Department had conclusively proved and supported the said case of the claimant and clearly indicated that there was clear negligence on part of the petitioner where 11 KVA wire had come in contact with stay wire which in turn was implanted in his field and the claimant had come in contact with the stay wire and received injuries due to which he lost both his arms and suffered serious injuries. It is in aforesaid facts that Permanent Lok Adalat had framed three issues for consideration.

¶11

The first issue was with regard to as to whether the claimant had, in fact, come in contact with the stay wire which was electrified and due to which both his hands were lost and he suffered injuries. He has taken into account the fact that due to various versions of the incident there was difference of 45 minutes gap in the time of occurrence of the said incident but it could not be denied that the claimant had suffered serious burn injures and and amputation of his hand due to coming in touch with life electricity wire.

¶12

The case of the claimant was duly submitted by his wife who also deposed and reiterated the facts as stated hereinabvoe. Permanent Lok Adalat concluded that the accident had, in fact, occurred between 8.30 to 9.00 hours on 27.6.2019 when the claimant had come in contact with live electricity wire and suffered serious injuries.

¶13

The second issue was with regard to as to whether the accident had happened due to negligence of the petitioner and while considering the said issue he has considered the location of the field of the claimant and it was verified that 11 KVA wire ran over his field and stay wire already implanted on his field which came in contact with said wire and the claimant also came in contact with stay wire due to which he was electrocuted and suffered serious injuries. The report submitted by Electricity Safety Department has conclusively supported the aforesaid facts and the petitioner cannot deny or defer from the report of the Electricity Safety Department.

¶14

It is in aforesaid facts that he has rightly concluded that there was negligence on part of the petitioner due to which the stay wire got electrified and the claimant was electrocuted when he came in contact with the stay wire.

¶15

The third issue pertained to the relief which could be granted to the claimant. In this regard he has considered the status of claimant that he was a farmer and also considered the nature of injuries suffered by him. He has quantified the compensation to be Rs.5 lakhs. He has also taken into account that the claimant has lost both his hands and has 80 percent disability and also that till deciding the said case he was under medical supervision or medical treatment was likely to continue for further period also. He granted Rs.1 lakh on account of medical expenses considering the fact that even after expiry of three years the claimant was still under medical treatment and accordingly he has allowed the claim and granted compensation of Rs.6 lakhs along with 7 per cent interest.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order has submitted that as per the inquiry conducted by the petitioner no such incident had occurred and the claim raised by the claimant was false.

¶17

The second ground urged by the petitioner is that the report of Electrical Safety Department was accepted by Permanent Lok Adalat without examining the concerned officer. With regard to the first contentions raised by the petitioner it is noticed that though the petitioner had totally denied the said occurrence but there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary available on record and the Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner. Firstly, it was reported by wife of the claimant about the incident where the claimant had come in contact with electrical wire due to which the said accident occurred. There were overwhelming evidence in the form of medical records which also corroborated the injuries suffered by the claimant confirming the occurrence of the accident. He had lost both his hands and suffered serious burn injuries on his head which could occur on account of burns when a person comes in contact with high electricity wire. Lastly, the report of Electricity Safety Department clearly indicates that the stay wire was electrified due to which he cam in contact with 11 KVA over head wire. There is no denial by the petitioner about the report of Electricity Safety Commission and both the facts clearly demonstrate that there was negligence on part of the petitioner due to which the claimant had come in contact with electricity wire and suffered serious burn injuries.

¶18

Considering aforesaid, this Court does not find any

¶19

infirmity with the findings recorded by Permanent Lock Adalat.

¶20

Next issue is with regard to reliance placed by Permanent Lok Adalat on the report submitted by Electricity Safety Department. It is noticed that as per Section 161 (1) if any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may by general or special order, direct to inquire and report about the said accident.

¶21

In the present case, information under Section 161 was duly given by the claimant to the petitioner on 9.1.2020 by registered post. It is in pursuance of the said information under Section 161 that inquiry was conducted by Electricity Safety Department of the State Government. It is Electrical Safety Department which has submitted and on this report which has been relied upon by Permanent Lok Adalat and in this regard it is noticed that report was submitted subject to statutory provisions contained under Section 161 of Electricity Act, 2003. It is further noticed that report of the Electricity Safety Department can be considered to be a public document accordion to Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and there was presumption of its genuineness before Permanent Lok Adalat and there is no infirmity in accepting the contents of the said report and allowed the claim of the claimant placing reliance on the said documents.

¶22

I have gone though the decision of Permanent Lok Adalat and find that they have adequately dealt with the contentions raised by the authorities and relying upon the overwhelming evidence place before them before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was in fact negligent and it is on account of the negligence of the petitioners that the claimant has suffered serious injuries and lost both his arms and find that no ground for interference is made out.

¶23

Accordingly, the petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 15.3.2024/RKM.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vidyut Vitran Division Ist Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Thru. Executive Engin. and Another v. Ramroop

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidyut Vitran Division Ist Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Thru. Executive Engin. and Another v. Ramroop

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

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

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

Om Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Krishana Nandan Mishra vs U.P. Co-Operative Village Development Bank Ltd. Ayodhya Thru. Its Branch Manager

Satgur and Others Vs the Addl. District Judge Court No. 8 Barabannki and Others