Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Executive Engineer, Electricity (M & ... vs Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat And Ors. on 8 October, 1998
Equivalent citations: 2000ACJ1199, AIR1999J&K137, AIR 1999 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 137
JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. We propose to dispose of both these matters (LPA No. 46/97 Executive Engineer and another v. Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat and OWP No. 1123/96 Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat and others v. Executive Engineer and others) by this judgment in view of order passed by this Court on July 14, 1998. Facts giving rise to the initiation of this case may be recorded briefly.
2. Petitioner is son of deceased Jalal-ud-din Bhat alias Jalla Bhat R/o Chanderigam, Tehsil Tral of District Pulwama. Petitioner's age is twenty years. His father was an agriculturist, cultivating his land growing primarily paddy on the total land in his ownership. Although it was hinted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased was working as labourer also but this fact has not been stated in this petition, therefore, we leave the matter at that.
3. On September 15, 1995 deceased was working in his field. High tension electricity line which passed through it has fallen in the field. Deceased was trapped in it and died instantaneously. Matter was reported to the Police and a First Information Report No. 80 of 1995 was registered in Police Station Awantipora. This report records the death of deceased due to electric shock. Petitioner approached the respondents seeking compensation and employment so that he could look after the family consisting of himself, mother and two unmarried sisters. With the death of deceased, petitioner remained the sole surviving male member in the family. It is pointed out that the case of the petitioner for employment was recommended by the Assistant Executive Engineer to his Superiors vide communication dated April 10, 1996 (Annexure E to the writ petition), followed by communication dated April 15, 1996 (Annexure F to writ petition) by Executive Engineer but no action was taken. This incident was reported to Deputy Commissioner Pulwama who awarded ex-gratia relief vide order No. 93/R dated January 2,1996 to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- that has been received by the petitioner.
4. Through this petition, compensation of twenty lac has been claimed. It is stated that the deceased died due to sheer negligence of the respondents since they failed to maintain high tension line passing through the land of petitioner properly. The deceased was the sole male member of the family looking after it. By his death; the whole responsibility has been cast on the petitionerwho is Matriculate but unemployed. The family is facing financial crisis according to , the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. In the memorandum of appeal, the respondents have admitted that one of the 11 KV lines on P.C.C. pole near village Chandrigam, (Awantipora) was burnt near the pin insulator with the result that the conductor had got snapped and was lying in the paddy fields at about 11 a.m. on September 15,1995. This fact has been stated on the basts of report of concerned Assistant Executive Engineer and the field staff. It is stated that this incident was not recorded in the Log sheet at the Receiving Station Awantipora. Negligence on the part of respondents has not been admitted and it is submitted that compensation cannot be paid to the petitioner except in Civil Court and that the Police is yet to investigate the matter. These are the material facts in the pleadings of the parties.
6. Shri R. A. Khan, learned Government counsel contended that in view of the dispute with respect to the incident, matter can appropriately be decided in the Civil Court. To bring home this contention reference was made to AIR 1976 SC 475 (Arya Vyasa Sabha etc. v. The Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Endowments). It was also contended that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that this matter can be appropriately decided by this Court, the compensation of rupees twenty lac is abnormally high, looking to the back ground and earnings of the deceased and his family. These contentions have been opposed by Shri Malik Ghulam Hasan, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel submits that in the light of facts stated in the petition and the reply by respondents, there is no dispute with respect to the material facts of the case and this Court can appropriately deal with this case and awarded compensation which is found reasonable on the basis of facts of the case.
7. First question is that whether this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and if so, whether this claim can be properly and effectively dealt with by it. We answer both these questions in affirmative. By this time it has been held in catena of cases by the Apex Court, this Court and other Courts that such like cases can be appropriately adjudicated by the High Court or the Apex Court provided the petitioner comes up with adequate material for seeking the relief. In case it is not possible to decide the case effectively and finally, the Court can grant interim compensation leaving the petitioner to claim further damages/compensation in the Civil Court.
8. After examining the facts of this case, we find that this case can be adjudicated by this Court finally and proper compensation awarded to the petitioner without directing him to approach the Civil Court. The incident was re-
ported to the police on the same day. It finds mention in First Information Report No. 80/1995 registered at Police Station Awantipora registered by the brother of the deceased. It mentions that the deceased died due to electric shock in the fields where he was working on September 15, 1995. The 11 KV line had fallen in the field in which the deceased was trapped and died instantaneously. This fact is further supported by the record of Village Chowkidar (Annexure C to the writ petition). Again, it finds mention in the report of Assistant Executive Engineer dated 16-9-1995, followed by communication dated April 10, 1996 and April 15, 1996, former being from the Assistant Executive Engineer to Executive Engineer Awantipora and latter from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer, Elect. M & RE Circle Bijbehara. Apart from these documents, order pf Deputy Commissioner Pulwama dated January 2, 1996 also mentions that the deceased died due to electrocution. Therefore, it is clearly demonstrated that the deceased died due to electrocution on September 15, 1995 around 11 a.m. while he was working in his field. It is also established that electric line 11 K.V.had fallen in the field in which the deceased was trapped and died there and then.
9. Consequently, it is held that the death of deceased was due to the negligence of respond-
ents who were bound to maintain the High tension 11 K.V. line passing through fields of the villagers. We hold that this Court can entertain petition of this nature and deal with it appropri-
ately. Similar view has been taken in cases like in AIR 1982 SC 149, S. P. Gupta v. President of India; AIR 1983 SC 1086 : (1983 Cri LJ 1644), Radul Sah v. State of Bihar; AIR 1984 SC 802:
0984 Lab IC 560), Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India; AIR 1984 SC 1026, Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India; AIR 1986 SC 494 : (1986 Cri LJ 192),Bhim Singh v.State of J. & K. ;
AIR 1987 SC 1086, M. C. Mehta v. Union of India;ILR(1987)HP359,AIR 1988 Him Pra l3, Jaram Singh v. State of H.P.; ILR (1987) HP 373, AIR 1989 Him Pra 5, Kalawati v. State of H.P.;
AIR 1988 Ker 206, Thressia v. K.S.E.B.; AIR l989 SC 1570, A. S. Mittal v. State of U.P. (1990) 1 SCC 422, AIR 1990 SC 513, Saheli v. Commissioner of Police; AIR 1990 SC 1417, Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India; AIR 1991 SC 1231, Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thillavillaian;(1991) 3 SCC 482, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar; AIR 1991 Ker 396, University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai; AIR 1992 SC 2069, Smt. Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu; AIR 1992 Orissa 68, Padam Behari Lal v. Orissa State Electricity Board; AIR 1992 Cai 207, Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. University of Calcutta; AIR 1993 SC 1960 : (1993 Cri LJ 2899), Smt. Nilabati alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and 1993 (1) Sim LC 340, Mohan Lal v. State of Himacha! Pradesh followed in AIR 1998 JK 37 (Miss. Haneefa Bano v. State of Jammu and Kashmir).
10. Next question is what compensation should be paid to the petitioner in this case for the death , of deceased. It is pointed out that deceased was forty eight year old. He was looking after family of five persons including himself. Due to his death, the members of the family are finding it difficult to make both ends meet. The deceased had small agricultural holdings, therefore, must be earning through other sources as well. Petitioner though Matriculate is also unemployed. His two sisters are also unmarried.
11. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that reasonable compensation in this case should be rupees two lac, Consequently, we direct the respondents to pay rupees two lac to the petitioner within a period of three months. Rupees 40.000/- have been deposited in the Registry of this Court pursuant to direction dated 20-12-1996. In case it has not been released in favour of the petitioner it be released by the Registry to the peti-tioner through counsel. Balance amount of | Rs. 1,60,000/- be deposited by the respondents with Jammu and Kashmir Bank Branch, Awantipora. The Manager of the Bank is directed to put this amount in fixed deposit in the name of Mst. Noori (widow), Mohd. Ashraf (son), Ms. Rafiqa (daughter), Ms. Dilshada (daughter) for a period of two years in the first instance renew-able for further period until otherwisedirected by this Court. We make it clear that in case peti-tioner required some amount for marriage, edu-cation and any other unavoidable expenditure in the family, he would make application to this Court and seek order. Further, we make it clear that if the amount is not deposited within the time allowed, respondents shall render themselves liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from January 7, 1999 till final deposit as directed.
12. Writ Petition No. (OWP) 1123/96 and LPA No. 46/1997 are accordingly disposed of in terms aforesaid leaving the parties to bear their own costs.