HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order may be read in continuation of the order passed by me on 5th September, 1995. In the said order I had concluded that in appropriate cases it is possible to give relief in accident cares in writ jurisdiction as well. A further direction was given to the District Judge, Gwalior, to hold an enquiry into the matter with regard to determination of the factual position as to whether the buffalo in question had, in fact, died on account of the electric shock sustained as alleged by the petitioner. The report has since been submitted. The District Judge, Gwalior, in his report dated 6th September, 1995 has concluded that the buffalo belonging to the petitioner died on account of the electric shock suffered by it from the leakage of current through the electric wire. The learned District Judge has placed reliance on the statement of the petitioner, Harisingh, and also of the doctor, who performed the post-mortem of the buffalo on 11.8.1995. The evidence of the Board was discarded on the ground that one of the witnesses viz., D.W. 1 V.P. Singh had visited the spot only on 13th September, 1995, i.e. more than a month after the occurrence. So far as the other witness DW 2 is concerned, cogent reasons have been given for not placing reliance on the statement given by him in Court. As such I accept the report submitted by the learned District Judge and the finding of fact recorded therein that the buffalo in question died on account of the electric shock is accepted.

(2.) THE question with regard to the quantum of compensation for the loss of buffalo in question may now be examined. In the writ petition claim has been made to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-. This amount represents the price of the buffalo. The interest at the rate of 18% per annum has also been claimed. The assertion of the petitioner with regard to the price of the buffalo has been denied by the Board. It be seen that the learned District Judge has not examined this issue regarding the price of the buffalo and he has confined only to the question as to whether the accident did take place or not ?

(3.) A direction was given in the order dated 5.9.1995 that the interim compensation be paid to the extent of Rs. 7,500/-. This has not been paid. The respondent/Board, would, therefore, pay Rs. 14,000/- to the petitioner. Let this be done within a period of fifteen days. If the payment is not made within a period of fifteen days then the petitioner would be entitled to the interest at the rate of 12%. This petition is allowed accordingly.