CHAMPA MALLICK Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, NESCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE lights of the house of the present petitioner was switched off on 26.05.2009, when she lost her husband and the petitioner opted to knock the door of this Court for claiming compensation.

(2.) THE other facts required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Srushtidhar Mallick, who is a vegetable seller, while coming back to his village after selling the vegetables through a paddy field on 26.5.2009 at about 8.00 A.M., saw a cow was thrilling coming in contact with the live electric wire being snapped from the main 11 K.V. electric wire and was lying scattered nearby the Lift Irrigation point. The husband of the petitioner in order to rescue the cow from sudden death, ran away to her and came in contact with the live electric wire and fell down being senseless and later on succumbed to the injuries. On the same day F.I.R. was lodged before Soro Police Station and U.D.Case No. 25 dated 26.5.2009 was registered. The O.I.C., Soro Police Station made inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body to C.H.C., Soro for post mortem. The Medical Officer of C.H.C., Soro, who conducted post mortem opined that the cause of death of Srushtidhar Mallick was due to high voltage electrocution. The Xerox copy of the post mortem report of the doctor is filed as Annexure -4 series to this writ petition. The O.I.C., Soro Police Station after due investigation submitted final form stating that the cause of death of Srushtidhar Mallick was due to electrocution. The petitioner alleges that since NESCO authorities were liable for the cause of the unprecedented death of her husband and as the husband of the petitioner was the only earning member of her family, she has prayed for compensation of Rs.4 lakhs from the opposite parties.

(3.) PURSUANT to the notice issued by this Court, opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their counter affidavit stating that there is no negligence on their part for the death of the husband of the petitioner, rather it is a negligence on the part of the husband of the petitioner. In paragraph 5 of the counter it is stated that the husband of the petitioner had availed power supply unauthorisedly by way of hooking through bare conductors from the OLIC point by connecting the electrical jumper for the purpose of cultivation. On the date of incident, i.e., on 26.5.2009 on getting the information, the Junior Technician rushed to the spot and found that the bare hooking conductor being hit by heavy rain and cyclone had fallen on the iron poles and as a result of which the electric pole was charged. It is further stated that the cow came in contact with the said iron pole and got electrocuted. The deceased rushed to the spot and while he was trying to disconnect thehooking arrangements made by him, got electrocuted. Therefore, the deceased and the cow got electrocuted due to the illegal and unauthorized hooking arrangements made by the deceased himself. The opposite parties have also denied the other averments made in the writ petition.