Meghalaya High Court
Smti Skilinda Iawphniaw vs The Meghalaya Energy Corporation Ltd ... on 25 March, 2014
Author: Sr Sen
Bench: Sr Sen
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG.
WP(C) No. 325 of 2012
Smti Skilinda Iawphniaw
W/o (L) Shri Khresmanwell Lyngkhoi
R/o Nonglang Village, Mawkyrwat,
West Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya ::::::: Petitioner
-Vrs-
1. The Meghalaya Energy Corporation Ltd
Represented by its Secretary,
Lumjingshai, Short Round Road,
Shillong.
2. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
MeECL.
3. Chief Engineer
4. The State of Meghalaya,
Represented by Commissioner
And Secretary, Power Department,
Shillong ::::::: Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SR SEN
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Baruah, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. H. Kharmih, Advocate
Date of hearing : 25.03.2014
Date of Judgment & Order : 25.03.2014
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
This instant writ petition is directed against the failure of the respondents/MeECL to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner on the death of her husband due to electrocution on 2nd March 2012.
WP(C) No. 325 of 2012 Page 1 of 42. The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:
"The Petitioner's husband Shri Khresmanwell Lyngkhoi an agriculturalist and skilled labourer having ten children and the only earning members of the family died on the spot due to electrocution on 2nd march 2012 due to unworthy condition the 11 KV line passing through Nonglang Village, Mawkyrwat touched / overlap the LT line.
The petitioner's husband died due to fault of the respondents MeECL whose employees with scant disregard to the safety of the people did not ensure that the 11 KV line touched the LT line.
The failure of the respondent to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner and his children is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India.
Hence this instant petition where appropriate order can be issued directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner and his children".
3. The learned counsel, Mr. K. Baruah appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband was a skilled labourer as well as a farmer, and he died due to electrocution and there was no negligence on the part of the victim/husband of the petitioner which according to the enquiry report prepared by the Electrical Inspector, Government of Meghalaya, and further argued that, at the time of the death of the victim/husband of the petitioner, he was only 45 years of age and had he been survived, he would have earned more and he is having 10(ten) children and a wife who are all dependant. So, necessary direction may be given for proper compensation.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. H. Kharmih appearing for and on behalf of the respondents/MeECL submits that compensation claim by the petitioner is exorbitantly high and without any logic. Therefore, the court may fix a reasonable compensation.
5. I have perused the enquiry report dated 04.04.2012 which is Annexure-2 conducted by the Electrical Inspector, Government of Meghalaya annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition. On perusal of the said enquiry report, it is clear that one (L) Khresmanwell Lyngkhoi died due to electrocution as he is WP(C) No. 325 of 2012 Page 2 of 4 totally unaware of the danger while trying to save his house. The conclusion part of the report is reproduced herein below:
"Summing up the facts above, the accident of Shri Khresmanwell Lyngkhoi had happened only because of the fact that he is totally unaware of the danger while trying to save his house.
(a) Shri Khresmanwell Lyngkhoi comes from a very poor family, the Board may therefore be directed to pay adequate compensation to the family members of the deceased.
(b) Periodically line patrolling/thorough checking of line and substation is to be done by the MeECL officials with information to this office.
(c) Action taken is to be intimated to the Government".
6. From the report it appears that the said enquiry report found that there was no negligence on the part of the victim and also re-commended for adequate compensation. The victim was a skilled labourer. This undisputed fact has appeared from the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. From the notification dated 24th August 2009 published in the Gazette of Meghalaya, it is specifically stated that re-numeration of a skilled labourer is fixed @ Rs. 140/- per day. If it is so, then his re-numeration/income would be Rs. 4200/- per month. Since his age was 45 years at the time of his death and general lives span today is 65 years, but since no strict proof of age is placed before this court, this court assumes that he would be alive by a minimum of 60 years. So, in that case, she is entitled for compensation for another 15 years. Rs. 4200/- per month in a year comes to Rs. 50, 400/- x 15 years comes to Rs. 7, 56, 000/-.
8. Therefore, after considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as taking into consideration the enquiry report as referred above, I am of the considered view that Rs. 7, 56, 000/- as compensation to the petitioner may suffice the purpose to help her and to educate her children. Hence, the respondents/MeECL is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7, 56, 000/- to the petitioner. Out of the said amount, let 60% be kept in a Fixed Deposit in the name of her children for their benefit and let 40% be used by WP(C) No. 325 of 2012 Page 3 of 4 the petitioner for immediate necessary education and survival of herself and for her children. Payment of compensation to be paid within 2(two) months from the date of this order failing which 12% interest will be charged per month.
9. With this observation and direction, this instant writ petition is allowed and the matter stands disposed of.
JUDGE D. Nary WP(C) No. 325 of 2012 Page 4 of 4