Kaushlya Devi Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1154414
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-01-2014
AppellantKaushlya Devi
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
cwp no.14783 of 2011 :1: in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh ***** cwp no.14783 of 2011 date of decision : july 01, 2014 ***** kaushlya devi ............petitioner versus state of haryana and others ...........respondents ***** coram: hon'ble ms.justice ritu bahri ***** present: mr.parminder singh, advocate for the petitioner. ms.mohnish sharma, advocate for respondents no.2 to 4. ***** ritu bahri, j (oral) the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent under article 227 of the constitution of india directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner on account of the death of her husband, subhash chand who died due to electrocution at karnal. on 26.6.2010, the husband of the petitioner came in the trap of the loose live electrical wire hanging on electric supply pole and died due to electrocution. as per the post mortem report conducted on 26.6.2010, the cause of death was stated as under: “in my opinion:- the cause of death in this kukreja ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.14783 of 2011 :2: case is asphyxia as a result electrocution such is anti- mortem in nature.”. an fir was registered under section 304-a on the statement made by the brother of the deceased suresh kumar giving the details of the incident in which his brother got entangled with the loose electricity wires. the department was negligent and did not disconnect the electricity supply in the broken cables which resulted into the death of subhash chand. the family of the deceased consisted of petitioner kaushalya devi, wife of the deceased, mother-in-law of the petitioner namely sunder devi aged 75 years.manju devi, daughter aged 16 years.rajnish, son aged 14 years.pushpinder, son aged 12 years.sumit, son aged 10 years i.e one daughter and three sons. the age of the deceased, as per the post mortem report was 38 years and he was doing agricultural work. the respondents in the written statement have not disputed the fact that the death of the husband of the petitioner was due to electrocution. the investigation was carried out by the department and it was found that subhash chand was working in the fields in village amargarh and died due to electric shock on 26.6.2010. m/s mayur electrical company, noida had employed contract labour for doing the work of hvds in indri sub division. the labour was doing the work of removing the electric wire from the lt poles. the contract labour was in the process of removing electric wire from lt polls. on 26.6.2010, subhash chand (deceased) went alone in the fields to kukreja ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.14783 of 2011 :3: collect the removed electrical wires and came in contact with the live wire and got electrocuted. he died due to electrocution due to lack of proper supervision and lack of proper coordination of the uhbvn and m/s mayur electric co.the investigating report is annexure r- 4/1. hence it is contractor of ms.mayur electric co., noida who as per clause 41 of the contract agreement liable for all losses, expenses or claim arising in connection with the death or injury to any person employed by the contractor or sub contractor of employees of the owner for the purpose of the work. the investigating report of executive engineer is annexure r-4/2 and a report submitted by sub divisional officer (operation).uhbvn is annexure r-4/3. hence the respondents are resisting the payment of compensation on the ground that it was m/s mayur elecrical co.noida who was responsible for payment of compensation as deceased subhash chand was employed by them and died during performance of his duties. in the written statement, it is denied that the deceased was an agriculturist. the petition is liable to be dismissed as m/s mayur electirc co., noida has not been impleaded as a necessary party. during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has filed a replication on 11.4.2014. the gram panchayat, amargarh, karnal has certified that balkar singh had given 4 ½ acres of land on lease to subhah chand (deceased) in march 2010 for a period of one year when he was doing the work on this land, suddenly due to electric shock, he expired. the owner of the land and other members of the panchayat had certified this certificate kukreja ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.14783 of 2011 :4: annexure p-3. this court proceeds to accept the certificate given by gram panchayat (annexure p-3) and hence comes to conclude that subhash chand ( deceased ) was working on the agricultural land at amargarh. the accident on this place had taken place on 26.6.2010 and as per the details of the allegation in the fir, the complainant's brother suresh kumar stated that his brother had taken 5 ¼ acres of land at village amargarh from one ram parshad. the petitioner, kaushalaya devi, being a widow had not even gone to get the fir registered. she is not even the complainant in the fir. since the complainant had also mentioned that his brother had taken the land on lease from ram parshad in the year 2010 and the said ram parshad has verified the certificate annexure p-3 given by sarpanch, this court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that deceased subhash chand was working as an agriculturist on a land given to him on lease by balkar singh and ram parshad. moreover, even if the deceased was working for some company the cause of death is not that he had died on account of performing his work with the company. he had gone alone to the fields to collect the electric wires and suddenly came in contact with the live wire and got electrocuted hence it was the electricity department who was negligent in not switching of the electric supply to a live wire which was lying loose in the fields. this fact is evident from the photographs (annexure p-2) which were taken on the same day i.e 26.6.2010. hence the electricity department is liable to compensate the entire family of subhash chand with compensation. the hon'ble kukreja ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.14783 of 2011 :5: supreme court in municipal corporation of delhi, delhi vs association of victims of uphar tragedy and others.2012 (3) recent apex judgments 92 (s.c) has held that the constitutional court while exercising its power under article 226 of the constitution of india is certainly empowered to invoke its jurisdiction to answer the claim of compensation and it is not necessary to force the litigant into the throes of long litigation before the civil courts and also to evolve its own methodology to assess compensation. at this stage, reference can be made to the judgment delivered by the hon'ble supreme court in m.p.electricity board versus shail kumar and others.air2002sc551 wherein it has been held as under:- “the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality is statutorily conferred on the electricity board. if the energy so transmitted caused injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. so long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires of potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. it is no defence on the part of the management of the board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. it is the look out of kukreja ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.14783 of 2011 :6: the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. at any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. the board is also liable under the strict liability rule. the basis of such liability is the forceable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. act of stranger is one exception to the rule of strict liability. the said exception is not available to the board as the act attributed to the stranger should reasonably have been anticipated or at any rate its consequences should have been prevented by the appellant board.”. further, in m.s.grewal and another versus deep chand sood & others.2001 (8) scc151 the hon'ble supreme court in a case of death of school children by drowning due to negligence of teachers escorting them on a picnic, has held that compensation can be determined on the basis of multiplier method adopted in motor accident claim cases. accordingly this court proceeds to assess the compensation in the light of the judgment delivered by hon'ble the supreme court in rajesh and others vs rajbir singh and others 2013 (9) scc54by applying the multiplier method as adopted in motor accident claim case. the accident in this case took place on 26.6.2010 and as per the post mortem report, the age of the deceased was 38 years.he was an agriculturist who was working on land taken on lease. his minimum income can be assessed to rs.kukreja ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.14783 of 2011 :7: 5000/- as payable to a daily wager in the year 2010. the compensation is assessed as per the following schedule. sr.no heads calculation (i) salary ` 5000 per month (ii) 50% of(i) above to be added as ` 5000+2500=7500 per month future prospects= (iii) ¼ of (ii) deducted as personal ` 7500-1875=5625 per month expenses of the deceased= (iv) compensation after multiplier of 16 ` 5625 x 12 x 16=1080,000 is applied= (v) loss of consortium ` 100,000 (vi) loss of care and guidance for minor ` 400,000 children and mother= (vii) funeral expenses ` 25,000 total compensation= ` 1605000 resultantly, the petition is allowed. compensation be given by respondents no.2 & 3 within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. a compliance report be sent to this court within a period of three months. july 01, 2014 ( ritu bahri ) ritu judge kukreja ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CWP No.14783 of 2011 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.14783 of 2011 Date of decision : July 01, 2014 ***** Kaushlya Devi ............Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...........Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI ***** Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

***** RITU BAHRI, J (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner on account of the death of her husband, Subhash Chand who died due to electrocution at Karnal.

On 26.6.2010, the husband of the petitioner came in the trap of the loose live electrical wire hanging on electric supply pole and died due to electrocution.

As per the post mortem report conducted on 26.6.2010, the cause of death was stated as under: “In my opinion:- The cause of death in this Kukreja Ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.14783 of 2011 :2: case is asphyxia as a result electrocution such is anti- mortem in nature.”

.

An FIR was registered under Section 304-A on the statement made by the brother of the deceased Suresh Kumar giving the details of the incident in which his brother got entangled with the loose electricity wires.

The Department was negligent and did not disconnect the electricity supply in the broken cables which resulted into the death of Subhash Chand.

The family of the deceased consisted of petitioner Kaushalya devi, wife of the deceased, mother-in-law of the petitioner namely Sunder Devi aged 75 yeaRs.Manju Devi, daughter aged 16 yeaRs.Rajnish, son aged 14 yeaRs.Pushpinder, son aged 12 yeaRs.Sumit, son aged 10 years i.e one daughter and three sons.

The age of the deceased, as per the post mortem report was 38 years and he was doing agricultural work.

The respondents in the written statement have not disputed the fact that the death of the husband of the petitioner was due to electrocution.

The investigation was carried out by the Department and it was found that Subhash Chand was working in the fields in Village Amargarh and died due to electric shock on 26.6.2010.

M/s Mayur Electrical Company, Noida had employed contract labour for doing the work of HVDS in Indri Sub Division.

The labour was doing the work of removing the electric wire from the LT Poles.

The contract labour was in the process of removing electric wire from LT polls.

On 26.6.2010, Subhash Chand (deceased) went alone in the fields to Kukreja Ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.14783 of 2011 :3: collect the removed electrical wires and came in contact with the live wire and got electrocuted.

He died due to electrocution due to lack of proper supervision and lack of proper coordination of the UHBVN and M/s Mayur Electric Co.The investigating report is Annexure R- 4/1.

Hence it is contractor of Ms.Mayur Electric Co., Noida who as per Clause 41 of the Contract Agreement liable for all losses, expenses or claim arising in connection with the death or injury to any person employed by the contractor or sub contractor of employees of the owner for the purpose of the work.

The investigating report of Executive Engineer is Annexure R-4/2 and a report submitted by Sub Divisional Officer (Operation).UHBVN is Annexure R-4/3.

Hence the respondents are resisting the payment of compensation on the ground that it was M/s Mayur Elecrical Co.Noida who was responsible for payment of compensation as deceased Subhash Chand was employed by them and died during performance of his duties.

In the written statement, it is denied that the deceased was an agriculturist.

The petition is liable to be dismissed as M/s Mayur Electirc Co., Noida has not been impleaded as a necessary party.

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has filed a replication on 11.4.2014.

The Gram Panchayat, Amargarh, Karnal has certified that Balkar Singh had given 4 ½ acres of land on lease to Subhah Chand (deceased) in March 2010 for a period of one year when he was doing the work on this land, suddenly due to electric shock, he expired.

The owner of the land and other members of the Panchayat had certified this certificate Kukreja Ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.14783 of 2011 :4: Annexure P-3.

This Court proceeds to accept the certificate given by Gram Panchayat (Annexure P-3) and hence comes to conclude that Subhash Chand ( deceased ) was working on the agricultural land at Amargarh.

The accident on this place had taken place on 26.6.2010 and as per the details of the allegation in the FIR, the complainant's brother Suresh Kumar stated that his brother had taken 5 ¼ acres of land at Village Amargarh from one Ram Parshad.

The petitioner, Kaushalaya Devi, being a widow had not even gone to get the FIR registered.

She is not even the complainant in the FIR.

Since the complainant had also mentioned that his brother had taken the land on lease from Ram Parshad in the year 2010 and the said Ram Parshad has verified the certificate Annexure P-3 given by Sarpanch, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that deceased Subhash Chand was working as an agriculturist on a land given to him on lease by Balkar Singh and Ram Parshad.

Moreover, even if the deceased was working for some Company the cause of death is not that he had died on account of performing his work with the Company.

He had gone alone to the fields to collect the electric wires and suddenly came in contact with the live wire and got electrocuted hence it was the electricity Department who was negligent in not switching of the electric supply to a live wire which was lying loose in the fields.

This fact is evident from the photographs (Annexure P-2) which were taken on the same day i.e 26.6.2010.

Hence the electricity Department is liable to compensate the entire family of Subhash Chand with compensation.

The Hon'ble Kukreja Ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.14783 of 2011 :5: Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi vs Association of Victims of Uphar Tragedy and otheRs.2012 (3) Recent Apex Judgments 92 (S.C) has held that the Constitutional Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is certainly empowered to invoke its jurisdiction to answer the claim of compensation and it is not necessary to force the litigant into the throes of long litigation before the Civil Courts and also to evolve its own methodology to assess compensation.

At this stage, reference can be made to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P.Electricity Board versus Shail Kumar and otheRs.AIR2002SC551 wherein it has been held as under:- “The responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality is statutorily conferred on the Electricity Board.

If the energy so transmitted caused injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy.

So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires of potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril.

It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line.

It is the look out of Kukreja Ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.14783 of 2011 :6: the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices.

At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted.

Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.

The Board is also liable under the strict liability rule.

The basis of such liability is the forceable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity.

Act of stranger is one exception to the rule of strict liability.

The said exception is not available to the Board as the act attributed to the stranger should reasonably have been anticipated or at any rate its consequences should have been prevented by the appellant Board.”

.

Further, in M.S.Grewal and another versus Deep Chand Sood & otheRs.2001 (8) SCC151 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of death of school children by drowning due to negligence of teachers escorting them on a picnic, has held that compensation can be determined on the basis of multiplier method adopted in Motor Accident Claim Cases.

Accordingly this Court proceeds to assess the compensation in the light of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajesh and others vs Rajbir Singh and others 2013 (9) SCC54by applying the multiplier method as adopted in Motor Accident Claim Case.

The accident in this case took place on 26.6.2010 and as per the post mortem report, the age of the deceased was 38 yeaRs.He was an agriculturist who was working on land taken on lease.

His minimum income can be assessed to Rs.Kukreja Ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.14783 of 2011 :7: 5000/- as payable to a daily wager in the year 2010.

The compensation is assessed as per the following schedule.

SR.No Heads Calculation (i) Salary ` 5000 Per month (ii) 50% of(i) above to be added as ` 5000+2500=7500 per month future prospects= (iii) ¼ of (ii) deducted as personal ` 7500-1875=5625 per month expenses of the deceased= (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 16 ` 5625 x 12 x 16=1080,000 is applied= (v) Loss of consortium ` 100,000 (vi) Loss of care and guidance for minor ` 400,000 children and mother= (vii) Funeral Expenses ` 25,000 Total Compensation= ` 1605000 Resultantly, the petition is allowed.

Compensation be given by respondents No.2 & 3 within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

A compliance report be sent to this Court within a period of three months.

July 01, 2014 ( RITU BAHRI ) ritu JUDGE Kukreja Ritu 2014.07.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh