Shrawan Kewat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

3. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Office At Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4. The Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner	: Mr. C. K. Sahu, Advocate.
For State/Respondents No.1 & 4	: Mr. R. K. Gupta, Addl. A.G.
For Respondent No.2 & 3	: Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

08/07/2026

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

¶21

Digitally
DEEPTI signed
by
JHA DEEPTI
JHA

¶22

“10.1 That this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to direct to grant the compensation on account of the untimely death sarita who came in contact while she was engaged in transporting the tullupump from the courtyard to the inside of here home and that time she came contact with the electric

¶23

2

¶24

shock and for account of which she was admitted at the CIMS Hospital at Bilaspur where the doctor had declared death and since sarita kewart was getting Rs. 4997/per month after deduction from her job and since Shravan Kumar Kewart was unemployed man and on when that date sarit had left her two children Himansi and Bhabhika and one child who was skilled in whom of sarita but untimely death of late sarita her child could not be able to she the outside and therefore the compensation amount fixed the petitioner which according to the circular the respondent are legally bound to grant at the compensation is 4 lacks but in the application filed by the petitioner before the office at Assistant Engineer at Tifra and Sakri had demanded and amount of Rs. 15 lacks and also interest @ 9% per annum death of the dated 01.11. 2024 and till the entire reliazation of the entire amount.

¶25

10.2 Any other order which the Hon'ble court may fine fit may also be directed to granted in the interest of justice.

¶26

10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. ”

¶27

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's wife died on 02.11.2024 due to electrocution. Immediately thereafter, the incident was reported to the concerned police authorities, who conducted an investigation and subsequently submitted a final report. It is submitted that although the final report records that the deceased died due to electrocution while operating a Tullu Pump, the petitioner contends that the electrocution occurred primarily on account of the negligence of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited. It is, therefore, argued that since the death of the petitioner's wife was caused by such negligence, the petitioner is legally entitled to payment of appropriate compensation from the respondent authorities.

¶28

3

¶29

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner's wife died within the domestic premises while operating a Tullu Pump and, therefore, the case does not fall within the ambit of the compensation scheme envisaged under Circular dated 10.09.2018. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already preferred an application seeking compensation, which has been duly considered and rejected by order dated 10.10.2025. Accordingly, it is contended that the grievance raised in the present writ petition no longer survives. Learned counsel further places reliance upon the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by this Court in WPC No. 2010 of 2023, wherein, in similar facts and circumstances, the claim for compensation was rejected on the ground that, in terms of Circular dated 10.09.2018, compensation is payable only when the accident occurs in relation to the electricity meter or electrical installation up to the consumer's metering point and not beyond the consumer's internal electrical system. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under the said Circular.

¶30

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, particularly the final report submitted by the concerned police authorities as well as Circular dated 10.09.2018, this Court finds that the death of the petitioner's wife occurred due to electrocution while operating a domestic Tullu Pump within the residential premises. Such an incident does not fall within the scope and coverage of the aforesaid Circular, which governs the grant of compensation in specified cases of electrical accidents. In view of the express provisions contained in the Circular, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of compensation as claimed in the present writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

4

¶32

6. However, before parting with the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that although the respondent authorities have contended that the petitioner's application for compensation was rejected by order dated 10.10.2025, there is nothing on record to indicate that the said order was ever communicated to the petitioner. No endorsement or other material has been placed before this Court to establish that a copy of the rejection order was served upon or dispatched to the petitioner. Such a lapse on the part of the authorities is a matter of serious concern, as every applicant is entitled to be informed of the fate of his application within a reasonable time. Failure to communicate the decision deprives the affected person of the opportunity to avail appropriate legal remedies available under law. Accordingly, this Court expects the competent officers of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited to personally ensure that every order passed on an application is duly communicated to the concerned applicant without delay. The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to exercise due care and ensure that such lapses are not repeated in future, failing which this Court shall be constrained to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶33

7. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶35

Deepti Jha

Shrawan Kewat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrawan Kewat 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Basanta Khare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sahab Rahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Fulsundari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Shri Hanuman Travels Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rupesh Kumar Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh