Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kashmiri Lal And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 April, 2011
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
RSA No.848 of 2008 (O & M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.848 of 2008 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 18.04.2011
Kashmiri Lal and another
......Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
None for respondent No.1.
L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
Plaintiffs-Kashmiri Lal and his wife Smt. Parkashi Devi, having lost in both the Courts below, are in second appeal.
Plaintiffs' case is that their son Rajesh aged 21 years was electrocuted on 03.11.2002 on account of negligence of the defendants. While working in the fields of one Rangi Ram, Rajesh came in contact with high voltage electricity line laid by respondent Nos.2 to 4 (officials of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.- UHBVNL). Plaintiffs accordingly claimed compensation for death of their son Rajesh caused by electrocution.
RSA No.848 of 2008 (O & M)-2-
Defendants broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was denied that plaintiffs' son died by electrocution or that there was any negligence on the part of the defendants. It was alleged that no such incident or accident as alleged by the plaintiffs had taken place. No intimation thereof was given to the defendants. It was pleaded that plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation. It was also pleaded that plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit because plaintiffs have already received Rs.50000/- as compensation from Market Committee vide cheque dated 31.03.2003 with undertaking that they shall not claim compensation from UHBVNL or from any other source. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2006 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2007. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that compensation of Rs.50000/- paid by Market Committee to the plaintiffs is grossly inadequate and plaintiffs are, RSA No.848 of 2008 (O & M) -3- therefore, entitled to compensation for the death of their son as per their entitlement from the defendants.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the plaintiffs received compensation of Rs.50000/- from Market Committee by giving undertaking that the plaintiffs would not claim financial assistance from any other institution for the death of their son and, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to any further amount of compensation.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board vide policy dated 09.04.1999 Ex.D-8 made provision for grant of compensation through Market Committees to relatives of persons, who die on account of some accident while engaged in agricultural/horticultural operations. According to this policy, such compensation has to be granted on the condition that the applicant has not claimed any financial assistance from UHBVNL or from any other department or Administration etc. and also will not make any claim in future. Compensation of Rs.50000/- was paid to the plaintiffs by Market Committee under the aforesaid policy. Plaintiffs gave undertaking by way of affidavit Ex.D- 4 that they will not claim any such compensation from any other source. Consequently, compensation of Rs.50000/- was paid to the plaintiffs. In view thereof, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim further RSA No.848 of 2008 (O & M) -4- compensation from the defendants and claim of the plaintiffs has been rightly rejected by the Courts below.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that DW-2- Nasib Singh Chauhan official of the defendants admitted that there is no rule of the defendants that compensation cannot be claimed from the defendants after receiving compensation from Marketing Board. The contention does not help the appellants because this stipulation is there in the policy of Marketing Board Ex.D-8 and not of the defendants. The plaintiffs are estopped from claiming compensation in the instant suit having received it from the Market Committee on the undertaking that they would not claim any further compensation from the defendants or from any other institution.
Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the aforesaid policy of the Marketing Board is against public policy and estoppel cannot operate against the plaintiffs. The contention cannot be accepted. The aforesaid policy of the Marketing Board is public policy meant for mitigating the hardship caused to kith and kin of the victims of accidents in agricultural/horticultural operations. Under this policy, the plaintiffs were granted compensation of Rs.50000/- without proof of any negligence on the part of anybody. The plaintiffs after having received compensation under the aforesaid policy now cannot turn around and cannot claim further compensation by filing the instant suit. Plaintiffs are estopped from RSA No.848 of 2008 (O & M) -5- doing so. Moreover, the plaintiffs concealed and rather falsely denied having received Rs.50000/- as compensation from the Market Committee. The plaintiffs also did not challenge the aforesaid policy of the Marketing Board in the suit and, therefore, the same cannot be assailed in second appeal. Moreover, having taken benefit of the policy, the plaintiffs cannot challenge the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim compensation in this case in view of principle of estoppel.
This Court has all the sympathy for the plaintiffs who lost their young son on account of electrocution. For this reason, defendants were required by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2010 to sympathetically consider the case of the plaintiffs, if some more amount of compensation may be granted to the plaintiffs because they have lost their son. However, defendants have rejected the claim of the plaintiffs because there is no provision in the rules or policies of the defendants for providing any further compensation to the plaintiffs. Merely on the ground of sympathy, this Court cannot direct the defendants to pay any amount to the plaintiffs when their entitlement is not legally established.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. The plaintiffs have been rightly non-suited by both the Courts below. No question of law, much less substantial RSA No.848 of 2008 (O & M) -6- question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 18.04.2011 A.kaundal