The court awarded Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner for the electrocution death of a minor student, relying on Supreme Court precedents, due to long delay and lack of alternative remedies despite the absence of a counter affidavit.
Directed opposite parties to release Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.11875 of 2006
3. 29.07.2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3.
This Writ Petition involves a claim for compensation on account of death on electrocution. In spite of pendency of Writ Petition here, there is no counter affidavit by the contesting opposite parties.
The case is decided on submission of Shri S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the CESCO.
Considering some materials through Annexures-1 & 2, though this Court is unable to reach at appropriate compensation but however, for establishment of a case of death on electrocution and death of a child reading in Class IX, on account of loss and pain to the family, this Court applying decision in the case of Raman Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. as reported in CLT (2015) II Supp.Crl.506 (S.C.) and in the case of Smt. Susanti Paikray & Anr. versus GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. as reported in 118 (2014) CLT 79 and further for there being no scope for the petitioner to avail any other remedy after such long delay, directs the opposite party nos.2 & 3 to release a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as a whole compensation in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above
direction.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
…….………………… (Biswanath Rath, J.)
Ayas
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant compensation for death of a minor on account of electrocution.
What is the appropriate compensation amount given the pendency and lack of counter affidavit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raman Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.Relied on¶7
CLT (2015) II Supp.Crl.506 (S.C.)
Smt. Susanti Paikray & Anr. versus GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd.Relied on¶7
118 (2014) CLT 79
Ayas
CESCO
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
