PRAMILA KHATUA Vs. CESU OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants, who are not only helpless but hapless also being aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge in O.J.C. No. 10925 of 1996 dated 11.7.2011 rejecting their case for award of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50.000/-, because of the death of the sole bread winner of their family by electrocution have filed this Writ Appeal urging various facts and contentions.

(2.) The case of the appellants is that the deceased Golekh Khatua who was the husband of the first appellant and son of the second appellant was eking out living by catching fish. It is alleged that on 23.6.1996 around noon time the deceased was returning to his house after catching fish from the river Sapua and on his way at Kundapatna near Jenapur came in contact with a live electric wire which had been snapped from the main line and had fallen on the field covered with green grass. The deceased could not see the live electric wire which had been covered with grass over the ground and died at the spot being electrocuted. The said incident was reported at Gurudijhatia Police Station. The police on receipt of the said information registered Gurudijhatia U.D. Case No.5 of 1996 which ultimately culminated in registration of G.R. Case No.19 of 1996. According to the appellants, the respondents were totally negligent in performance of their statutory duties and therefore when they failed to discharge their duties and responsibilities in proper maintenance of the electric line they are vicariously liable to adequately compensate the legal representatives of the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased was 42 years old when he died and had left behind his widow, two minor sons and two minor daughters besides the widow mother having no source of income. It is the further case of the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs.3,500/- per month by catching fish. The appellants, who were starving after the death of the sole bread winner approached this Court to get compensation by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, for their survival.

(3.) Though the respondents, who were the opposite parties in O.J.C.No.10925 of 1996 entered appearance through their counsel, but they did not file any counter affidavit.