Dismissed

Rajinder Sharma v. P.S.E.B

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Apr 2014CWP/16607/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged death of a school teacher due to electrocution by a snapped high-tension wire, seeking compensation under Article 226. The Court held that negligence requires proof in civil courts. With the respondent denying negligence and citing storm damage, this was a disputed factual question unfit for writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for issuance of direction to award compensation was dismissed. Petitioners allowed liberty to pursue alternative remedies.

Rajinder Sharma Vs P.S.E.B — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 16607 of 1999 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 16607 of 1999 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 03.04.2014

¶6

Rajinder Sharma and others

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

P.S.E.B and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶12

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶16

This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

¶17

India is for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to award compensation to the petitioners causing the death of Smt. Rajesh Rani w/o petitioner No. 1 and mother petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 by negligent act of respondents.

¶18

The occurrence took place on 03.08.1999 when Smt Rajesh Rani was returning with her colleague teacher i.e Shiv Kumar on the scooter after school was over. When they were passing the village Thuhi suddenly the electric high tension wire snapped and fell over

¶19

them with the result Rajesh Rani died on the spot and Shiv Kumar alsoArora Gaurav

¶20

Arora Gaurav 2014.07.22 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP No. 16607 of 1999 (O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

received injuries on his chest, left elbow and his right head got charred due to electrocution but he survived. D.D.R was lodged on 03.08.1989 in this regard and the cause of death was shown as electrocution (P-2). Shiv Kumar who was under shock and was suffering serious injuries has also lodged DDR about this incident on 21.08.1999 (P-3). As per Post Mortem Report, the cause of death of Rajesh Rani was due to shock which is as a result of electric current and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature (P-4).

¶24

Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the kids of Rajesh Rani (since deceased) at the age of 11 and 8 years who have lost their mother, who was working in Government School as teacher and was drawing the salary of Rs.9668 per month and was to continue her service for next 23 years as she was to retire on 31.12.2021. Her pay certificate is Annexure P-5.

¶25

On notice, a written statement has been filed by the respondents taking a stand that the occurrence took place as the earth wire was broken and fell down on the earth due to heavy storm and rain on 03.08.1999 and it was not due to the negligence of the employees of the Board The allegations in the petition that the transformer of the village Thuhi was in deteriorated condition or outlived its life, is being denied. There was no complaint with regard to

¶26

Arora Gaurav 2014.07.22 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

-3-

¶28

CWP No. 16607 of 1999 (O&M)

¶29

the said transformer in the village Ageti. After conducting the necessary investigation, the register where the complaint with regard to the transformer by the village was not made available by the employees of the department as per R-3 and R-4. The enquiry was conducted vide R-5 by the Executive Engineer whether the incident occurred was under the control of Jr. Engineer. On receiving the information he and his staff went immediately connected the broken earth wire and the supply was re-started. After checking the fuses, it was found that the maintenance of transformer was as per prescribed standard. One of the eye witness Sh. Bikkar Singh has cut the supply switch of the transformer after passing through the water from where it seems that there was no current in the water. The occurrence occurred due to heavy winds (storms) and rains. No employee of the Board is responsible for the said occurrence (R-5)

¶30

After going through the written statement filed by the respondents, this Court is of the view that it was not the negligence of the employees of the department which resulted in the death of Rajesh Rani due to electrocution. It was on account of heavy winds (storms) and rains which resulted in to the breakage of earth wire due to heavy winds. The deceased and her colleague Shiv Kumar were coming on the

¶31

scooter and got entangled with the wire and fell down on the road.

¶32

Arora Gaurav 2014.07.22 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CWP No. 16607 of 1999 (O&M)

¶34

-4-

¶35

This fact is not being disputed by the petitioner.

¶36

Reference can be made to a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of S.D.O Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. And others vs. Timudu Oram, 2005(3) R.C.R (Civil) 804 wherein it is held that it was necessary to establish the case of negligence at the behest of the Nigam which resulted into the death of the person claiming compensation. In para 7 of the judgment, it has been observed as under:-

¶37

In Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and others (supra) with which case these appeals were listed for hearing but could not be heard for want of service this Court took the view that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and were not fit cases for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was held that actions in tort and negligence were required to be established initially by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of electric transmission line belonging to the appellant had snapped and the deceased had come into contact with it and died by itself was not sufficient for awarding compensation. The Court was required to examine as to whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence on the part of the appellants, as a result of which the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the defence raised and the denial by the appellants

¶38

Arora Gaurav 2014.07.22 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CWP No. 16607 of 1999 (O&M)

¶40

-5-

¶41

in each of the cases, the appellants deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission line and yet the wires had snapped because of the circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties. Such disputed questions of fact could not be decided in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That the High Court could not come to the conclusion that the defence raised by the appellants had been raised only for the sake of it and there was no substance in it. In para 6 it was observed thus:-

¶42

"In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants." The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to Appellant I had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died

¶43

was not by itself sufficient for awarding

¶44

Arora Gaurav 2014.07.22 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CWP No. 16607 of 1999 (O&M)

¶46

-6-

¶47

compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence or the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No.5229 of 1995."

¶48

In the present case, the respondents have taken a specific

¶49

stand that the occurrence occurred due to heavy winds (storms) and rains. No employee of the Board is responsible for the said

¶50

Arora Gaurav 2014.07.22 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

CWP No. 16607 of 1999 (O&M)

¶52

-7-

¶53

occurrence.