Judgment:
Jasbir Singh, J.
1. Son of the petitioner suffered grievous burn injuries including amputation of his right arm, while accidentally catching a high voltage electric wire.
2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that directions be issued to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 25 lac, to the petitioner, on account of negligence of the respondents in not removing electric wires/line from the populated area, which resulted into above accident.
3. The petitioner has stated that he belongs to a poor section of the society. His grandfather Shiv Lal, being a landless labourer and member of scheduled casts, was allotted a 100 square yards plot, for construction of a residential house, in the year 1987. To say so, reliance has been placed upon allotment letter dated 01.10.1987 (P-l). It has further been stated by the petitioner that live electric line of 11000 volts was crossing over the plot allotted to grandfather of the petitioner. At the time of construction of the house, villagers made a request to the respondents to shift that electric line, however, nothing was done. The electric line is crossing over the roof of many houses in the locality.
4. On 03.08.2008, at about 7.30 a.m., son of the petitioner went on roof of his house for playing and due to wind, right hand of son of the petitioner was entangled in the live electric wires crossing over roof of house of the petitioner. Due to sparking, the wood which were lying on roof of the house, also caught fire. A neighbour of the petitioner, namely Sukhbir Sharma, cut the electric wire which saved son of the petitioner, who, thereafter, was treated, in the Hyderabadi Hospital at Panipat and then shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital. On account of grievous injuries, his right arm was amputated. Son of the petitioner remained admitted in the hospital for 3 months. The treatment for skin grafting was still going on when this writ petition was filed. Copy of MLR dated 03.08.2008 (P-2) has been put on record. It is further case of the petitioner that, at his instance, DDR No. 29 dated 06.08.2008 was recorded, whereupon a report was prepared on 03.10.2008, which clearly indicates that son of the petitioner was electrocuted on 03.08.2008, as mentioned above. It is grievance of the petitioner that despite many representations made, by him and other villagers, the electric line was not shifted. The respondents were negligent and on account of that, injuries were caused to his son.
5. Upon notice, reply has been filed, wherein existence of electric line, crossing over house of the petitioner, is not disputed, rather, it has been stated that the petitioner had constructed his house, underneath the electric line, without getting any permission and has thus violated instructions issued by the respondents. It is further averred that son of the petitioner was playing on roof of the house with GSL, which was used as an iron rope for drying the clothes, the pipe touched the electric line, which resulted into electric. shock to the child. To say so, reliance has been placed upon investigation reports Annexures R-l and R-2.
6. Counsel for the parties heard.
7. Facts are not much in dispute. Existence of electric line, passing over the house of the petitioner is not in dispute. Now, it is to be seen whether, in not removing the electric line from the populated area, or in the alternative, by not restraining the inhabitants to raise construction thereunder, the authorities were negligent or not?
8. Photographs at page 18 shows that an electric line is passing through the populated area and it cross-over several houses, including house of the petitioner. In reply, it has been stated that electric line was made operational more than two decades ago. The petitioner had constructed his house underneath the electric line without getting permission from the authorities. As such, he is not entitled to claim any compensation. This Court feels that such an attitude is not justified. In this case, petitioner belongs to lower strata of the society. Under a Scheme, vide allotment letter Annexure P-l, a 100 square yards plot was allotted to grandfather of the petitioner for constructing a residential house. Electric line was crossing over that plot. Being a poor person, grandfather of the petitioner had no option but to construct his house underneath the electric line. Before making the allotment, it was duty of respondent Nos. 1 and 5 to ensure that the area allotted is not subject to any danger. Perusal of photographs further indicates that height of the live electric wires, from the roof top of the house is very less. Officials of respondent No. 2 are bound to patrol the line, at intervals, and they were to ensure that the inhabitants were not put to any danger. Nothing has been put on record to show that as to whether any warning was given to the inhabitants not to go up to the roof tops or whether they were asked to shift their houses. Facts mentioned above, clearly indicate that the authorities were negligent in continuing the electric line through the populated area.
9. Their lordships of Supreme Court in MS. Grewal and Anr. v. Deep Chand Sood and Ors. : A.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court 3660, dealing with a case, where some school children died by drowning in a river, when they were on a picnic tour, observed as under:
Negligence in common parlance mean and imply 'failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person'. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by with the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act, negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack of proper care in doing something, in short, it is want of attention and doing of something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do (vide Black's Law Dictionary). Though sometimes, the word 'inadvertence' stands and used as a synonym to negligence, but in effect negligence represents a state of the mind which however is much serious in nature than mere inadvertence. There is thus existing a differentiation between the two expressions - whereas inadvertence is a milder form of negligence, 'negligence' by itself mean and imply a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow. Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (18th Ed.) sets out four several requirements of the tort of negligence and the same read as below:
(1) the existence in law of a duty of care situation, i.e. one in which the law attaches liability to carelessness. There has to be recognition by law that the careless infliction of the kind of damage in suit on the class of person to which the claimant belongs by the class of person to which the defendant belongs is actionable;
(2) breach of the duty of care by the defendant, i.e. that it failed to measure up to the standard set by law;
(3) a casual connection between the defendant's careless conduct and the damage;
(4) that the particular kind of damage to the particular claimant is not so unforeseeable as to be too remote.
10. Present is a case where the authorities have failed to exercise due care and caution which was expected from them. Safety of the inhabitants was not kept in mind. No attempt was made either to stop construction underneath the electric line or to shift the electric line, at any stage. The very existence of electric line through the populated area establishes careless and negligent attitude of the authorities. Due to negligence on the part of the authorities, a small child has been incapacitated for whole of his life. Certificate issued by the hospital on 17.12.2008 (P-4) reads thus:
This is to certify that Master Sahil was treated at Jaipur Golden Hospital by me as a case of Extreme Electrical Burn. He lost his RF upper limb because of electrical burns and have sustained permanent damage to his scalp and Pt. Heel over Gfoot. He has also got extreme permanent sarry, because of this he has got permanent disability of 75% in the upper limb and functional disability because of same and damage the foot to 40%. All his disability are permanent in nature.
11. Contents of the certificate and the photographs indicate that son of the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% in the upper limb and functional disability also. He has also suffered 40% disability on the foot. The disability has been declared as permanent one. The petitioner may be very happy that his son may help him in the old age, whereas, the photographs mentioned above indicates that for whole of his life, the child has to be looked-after by the petitioner. Instead of becoming an asset, the child has become a liability.
12. In the writ petition, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has spent a huge amount on the medical treatment of his son. However, medical bills were not put on record. Only it was stated that the necessary record will be produced at the time of arguments. At the time of hearing, a typed copy of list of bills of and the amount involved was handed over to the Court, which shows that the petitioner may have spent more than Rs. 8 lac on the medical treatment of his son, but in the absence of authentic proof on record, nothing can be said in that regard. It appears that the medical treatment of son of the petitioner may continue for some time more.
13. To give solace to the family and benefit to the child, this Court feels that this writ petition can be disposed of by granting interim compensation of Rs. 2.5 lac, to the petitioner, and liberty be left with him to prove his claim before the Competent Court by availing remedy under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 or any other enactment. The amount mentioned above be paid to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 10% per annum from the date of passing of this judgment, till realization of the amount.
14. Disposed of.