CHILUKURU BHARATI Vs. A P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the wife, second petitioner is the son and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are parents of one C. Brahmananda Reddy. They filed writ petition, being W.P.No.8150 of 1997, seeking a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for the death of Brahmananda Reddy. On 09.07.1996 due to electric shock, which according to the petitioners is a result of negligence of the respondents, Brahmananda Reddy died. By order and judgment dated 30.09.2002, the learned single Judge disposed of the said writ petition directing payment of Rs. 50,000/- as ex gratia.

(2.) Brahmananda Reddy was an agriculturist. On 09.07.1996 at about 5:30 am when he was proceeding to his agriculture garden, he came in contact with a live electricity wire on the ground, which had fallen due to heavy gale. On coming into contact with the live wire, he died. A case in Crime No. 37 of 1996 was registered at P.S. Kuderu in Anantapur District. The petitioners contended that the respondents did not take care to maintain the distance as required under the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. In the counter the respondents pleaded that the wire which was fallen down on that day belonged to the consumer and it was not supplied by the Board at the time of releasing supply and that the responsibility to safeguard the wire is with the consumer. Learned Judge came to the conclusion that the question of payment of compensation has to be agitated in the civil Court. However, having regard to the fact that Brahmananda Reddy died after coming into contact with live electricity wire, directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- as ex gratia.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that when there is a clear finding recorded that the electricity wire fell on the ground as a result of snapping of the wire due to heave rain, the learned Judge ought to have drawn an inference that such snapping is due to negligence on the part of the respondents. When there were no disputed questions of fact, nothing prevented the writ Court to award compensation as asked for. Per contra, the Standing Counsel for electricity relies on SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram, 2005 6 SCC 156 to refute the petitioners' submission.