EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UTILITY LTD.,CUTTACK ELECTRICAL DIVISION, JOBRA, CUTTACK Vs. HEMA SETHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge passed in OJC No.18039 of 1997 on 16.7.2010 in awarding compensation in favour of the Respondent herein at Rs.2,00,000/ - with simple interest per annum from the date of presentation of the writ petition till payment is challenged in this appeal urging various facts and legal contention.

(2.) THE brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties with a view to find out as to whether any substantial question of law that would arise for our consideration in this appeal and answer the same in favour of the appellant petitioner, Central Electricity Supply Utility Ltd., (hereinafter called in short 'CESU).

(3.) THE respondent is represented by Dr. Tahali Charan Mohanty, Sr. Advocate. He contends that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that an act of God and accident occurred and death took place has to be attributed to the Supplier, in support of the said contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.D.O., Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Ors., v. Timudu Oram, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3971. Dr. Tahali Mohanty learned Senior Advocate has sought to justify the order contending that the said order is based on proper appreciation of facts and law on the question and also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi and anr. reported in AIR 2000 SC 43, wherein the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nirmala Nayak and ors. Vs. Chairman -cum -Managing Director, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and anr., reported in 2005 (II) OLR 389, in which judgment various earlier decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to various aspects have been referred to, regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and further contends that the accident occurred on account of falling of live electric line on the deceased and he died on account of the act of God, in such cases the act of negligence has to be applied for non -maintenance of the electric supply lines and therefore there is negligence and compensation shall be paid to the dependants, the Company is liable to pay compensation. He has further contended that various decision of the Supreme Court namely, in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. V. Sukamani Das, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3412, in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Sachin Banerjee, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3629, the Supreme Court has examined the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the rule of strict liability has been considered and granted compensation in favour of the claimants in those cases. Therefore, reliance placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court referred to supra by the learned counsel for the appellant is totally inapplicable to the facts of the case and therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.