MASTER KARTIK Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the minor son of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who is studying 5th class. On 11-1-1994 he came into contact with a live overhead 11000 Volts high voltage electric line passing adjacent to their neighbour's house, the second respondent herein, due to which he suffered severe burns. He was admitted into CDR Hospital immediately, but on'account of those burns elbow of the righthand and below knee of the right leg were amputated. The building in which the accident occurred was in existence for over a decade and the H.T. Line in question was installed about one and half years back. The requirement relating to installation of overhead lines is set out in Chapter VIII of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 framed under, Section 37 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 80 of the said Rules prescribes that the horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor and any part of the building shall be atleast 1.2 metres or 48". But the distance in question on inspection is found to be less than 36" and mere is a clear shortage of 1 foot and if the maximum deflection due to wind pressure is also taken into consideration, the clearance will be less than 36". The first respondent-A.P.S-E.B. failed to follow safety norms and failed to maintain the prescribed distance according to law. No endeavour was made to put up any insulating material to cover the lines running dangerously close to the building due to which the career and prospects of the first petitioner received a serious set back. He suffered terrible psychological depression. His career is marred and it is not possible for him to gain normal life, nor lead a comfortable social family life. Article 21 of the Constitution is violated since right to live with dignity and in a fit and dignified manner is denied to the first petitioner. The petitioners are therefore entitled to recover damages of a sum of Rs.25,09,324/-, the breakup of which is shown in the writ petition. The petitioners have issued a notice to the first respondent which was received on 16-5-1994, but as they did not receive any reply the writ petition is filed.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the writ petition .is bereft of necessary details and as to how the accident had occurred. No written complaint was given to police either by the parents of the first petitioner or others about the incident. But, however, the CDR Hospital authorities informed Kachiguda Police Station on phone about the accident. The first (sic. 2nd) respondent constructed the building without any set off as required under the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. There is no compound wall to the said building nor any open space due to which the building is straightway open into 200 feet road on the margin of which the electrical line is situated. In view of the location and construction of the building, the clearance was short by 0.08 metres. It is not possible for a boy like the first petitioner to come in contact with the live wire with bare hands unless the boy had used an object like a long iron rod which acts as a conductor. Merely because the minimum required horizontal dearence has fallen short of a few inches, it cannot be inferred that the respondent is negligent. As no details are given in the petitioners' affidavit, it is presumed that the first petitioner might have come into contact with the live conductor by climbing up the pole for purpose of retrieving certain playing object like kite or otherwise. Therefore, it is unjust to blame the first respondent for the alleged negligence in the absence of specific proof. Huge claim of compensation without relevant details cannot be sustained. Had there been appropriate complaint at the relevant time, the police would have certainly gathered the facts leading to the accident and it is not possible at this belated stage to ascertain the exact reasons for the accident. In any event, these allegations will have to be enquired into in a properly constituted suit. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

(3.) The second respondent against whom no specific relief is claimed, in his counter-affidavit stated that on the fateful day at 5.00 p.m. the first petitioner and his son went to the terrace of the first floor of the building, a little later he heard shouts from the residents of the first floor in the op posi te building and his son came running and informed that the first petitioner had fallen down on the terrace. The second respondent immediately went up and found the first petitioner in an unconscious state with his face lying on the parapet wall of the terrace and there was a small iron rod in his right hand touching the electric hefty wire passing nearby. He immediately realised what had happened and fortunately he could notice a wooden piece nearby on the terrace and with the help of that wooden piece, he separated the iron rod from the live wire and carried the petitioner to the ground floor. Thereafter several neighbours gathered inchuding the third petitioner and the boy was immediately admitted in the hospital. He also denies that his building was constructed contrary to the Municipal laws. He also asserts that his son, Mr. Rajasekhar immediately after the incident told him that the first petitioner and his son were talking about the school matters in the upstairs. While so, the first petitioner took up an iron rod which was lying there and was waving it standing against the compound wall, during the course of which the rod came into contact with the live wire and thus, this accident had occurred. He finally states that the attitude of the first respondent is indifferent and even after happening of the above event, the first respondent did not take precautions to insulate the electrical wire passing by. The wire remains open throwing threat of danger to the inmates even now.