Smt. Harbai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jun 2025WPC/538/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 538 of 2022; decided 18/06/2025 by Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; writ petition by widow and minor children of deceased electrocution victim Naresh Kumar Nishad; faulty electricity line of CSPDCL (respondents 3 to 5); CSPDCL circular dated 10.09.2018 on ex gratia assistance; compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-; payment within 45 days; default interest @ 9% per annum from date of incident till realisation; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Lump-sum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- awarded against respondents 3 to 5, payable within 45 days, failing which the amount carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of incident till the date of realisation. ¶¶37

Smt. Harbai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

NAFR

2025:CGHC:25466

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 538 of 2022

¶6

1 - Smt. Harbai W/o Late Shri Naresh Kumar Nishad, Aged About 31 Years R/o Peeparchhedi (Hal) Tilda, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapar, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Harishankar Nishad S/o Late Shri Naresh Kumar Nishad, Aged About 13 Years Minor Thorugh Legal And Natural Guardian Mother Mmt. Har Bai Nishad, R/o Peeparchhedi (Hal) Tilda, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Dhaneshwar Kumar Nishad S/o Late Shri Naresh Kumar Nishad Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal And Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Har Bai Nishad, R/o Preeparchhedi (Hal) Tilda, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - Ku. Arti Kumari Nishad D/o Late Shri Naresh Kumar Nishad, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Har Bai Nishad, R/o Reeparchhedi (Hal) Tilda, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya,Date: DUBEY 2025.06.19 17:17:15 Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagr, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.+0530

¶13

¶14

2 - Collector, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶15

3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Chairman, Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

4 - Executive Engineer, Cspdcl, Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

5 - Junior Engineer, Cspdcl, Lawan, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Aman Tamboli, Advocate For Respondent 1& : Shri Praveen Das,Dy. AG 2/State For Respondents 3 to 5 : Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate

¶20

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

18/06/2025

¶23

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners-wife and children of the deceased Naresh Kumar Nishad Kumar Sahu, aged about 30 years sustained electric shock and succumbed to it on 27^th July 2025. The accident occurred while he had gone to his field along with his father and on account of faulty electricity-line erected by respondent No.3/CSPDCL.

¶24

As per the indisputable averments of the petition, the petitioner No.1 has claimed for compensation from the respondents No. 3 to 5 as they were responsible for maintenance of electric wires, electric poles etc. and it is the incumbent on the part of the respondents to ensure that no such open and unauthorized wiring is done and cause accident.

¶25

¶26

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents under the rules were duty bound to conduct the periodical inspection of the electric lines, poles, transformers etc., maintained by them and to take care of the safety measures to prevent the accidents. These provisions relating to safety and security are not followed by the Board. Consequently the loss of life is required to be compensated by the respondents without any enquiry into tortious liability of the Board under the ordinary law.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5 submits that as per circular dated 10.09.2018 of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Dangania, Raipur, it has been mentioned as under:

¶28

*NRrhlx< LVsV ikoj fMLVªhC;w’ku daiuh fyfeVsM ds fo|qr iznk; ra= ls miHkksDrk ifjlj es Lfkkfir fo|qr ehVj rd ckgjh O;fDr ,oa fMLVªhC;w’ku daiuh esa ckg~; L=ksr ls fu;ksftr dehZ ds lkFk fo|qr nq?kZVuk gksus ij nq?kZVuk esa er O;fDr ds oS/kkfud mRrjkfkdkjh dks rFkk nq/kZVuk esa viax O;fDr dks ,oa er eos’kh@i{kh ds oS/k ekfyd dks vfFkZd lgk;rk jkf’k iznku djus ds laca/k esa tkjh ifji= dz02&01@lkek-@fo|qr nq?kZVuk@8472 jk;iqj fnukad 04-032014 ,oa ifj dz- 02&01@lkek-@fo|qr nq?kZVuk@422 jk;iqj fnukad 02-12-2016 dks vfrdzfer djrs gq, fuEukuqlkj funsZ’k tkjh fd;s tkrs gS:

¶29

v- ikij fMLVªhC;w’ku daiuh ds fo|qr iznk; r= ls vk?kkr ij O;fDr dh eR;q gksus vFkok viax gksus ij erd ds oS/kkfud mRrkjkf/kdkjh ,oa viax O;fDr dks fuEukuqlkj vkfFkZd lgk;rk jkf’k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;s:

¶30

1- ckgjh O;fDr dh fo|qe nq?kZVuk ds izdj.k esa nh tkus okyh iqujhf{kr vkfFkZd lgk;rk jkf’k 4]00]000@& gSA

¶31

fo|qr nq?kZVuk esa e`rd oS/kkfud mRrjkf/kdkjh vFkok ihfMr O;fDr dks vkfFkZd lgk;rk jkf’k ds Hkqxrku laca/kh dk;Zokgh lacaf/kr {ksf=; dk;Zikyd funs’kd@eq[; vfHk;ark]

¶32

¶33

nq?kZVuk ds foLr`r tkap izfrosnu dh leh{kk dj fu;ekuqlkj fu/kkZfjr vkfFkZd lgk;rk jkf’k ds Hkqxrku dh dk;Zokgh lqfu’fpr djsaxaA*

¶34

Having heard counsel for the parties and the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5 and further taking into account the fact that the death of husband of petitioner No.1 occurred due to electrocution has not been disputed and as per circular dated 10.09.2018, the respondent No. 3 to 5 ie. the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited will deposit Rs. 4,00,000/- subject to filing of the application by the petitioners.

¶35

Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the interest of justice would be served if a lump-sum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that respondents 3 to 5 shall pay the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 45 days, failing which, the amount would carry further interest @ 9% per annum from the date of incident till the date of realisation.

¶36

With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

Smt. Harbai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Harbai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanji Bhai Chopada Vs the Additional Collector and Prescribed Officer

Smt. Jayaben Chopada Vs the Additional Collector and Prescribed Officer

Champaben Chopada Vs the Additional Collector and Prescribed Officer

Arun Pati Tripathi Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Ram Lal Alias Gautariha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abdul Sattar Vs Jarina Begam