HARAMANI DAS Vs. CESU OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking a direction from this Court to the opposite party to show cause as to why the petitioners shall not be awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ - (Rupees Five Lakhs) together with interest @20% immediately and if the opposite party fails to show -cause or show insufficient cause to make the rule absolute by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other2 appropriate writ / order / directions as the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper, equitable and expeditious taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances.

(2.) PETITIONERS are the claimants, petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased whereas the petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased who died in electrocution on 11.08.1997. The opposite party is an authority under the State of Odisha and the owner of the Electric Line as well as the pole through which the alleged electrocution to the body of the deceased has occurred.

(3.) PER contra, the opposite party on its appearance has filed a counter denying its responsibility. The opposite party alleged that the document under Annexure -1 filed by the petitioners nowhere discloses that the deceased died in electrocution. W hile denying the claims made by the petitioners, the opposite party submitted that there are no latches on its part. There is not only proper maintenance of the lines under the control of the GRIDCO to all the lines within the Bhubaneswar New Capital Area but those are also in absolute perfect condition. This being a sensitive area, maintenance staffs are doing day to day maintenance work regularly, besides the lines are inspected regularly. There is no question of having any rotten and old wire in the locality. However, the opposite party while admitting the accident submitted in sub -para -1 at page 13 of its counter that the unprecedented accident was caused due to short -circuit on account of the fact that a Coconut tree branch fell over the L.T. Conductor as on that day there was heavy rain with storm and lightening. Thus claimed that the alleged incident to be treated as an Act of God. The department claimed that no negligence can be attributed to the department as it is an Act of God and the compensation should be denied. W ith regard to the claim of the petitioners relating to the salary that was drawn by the deceased at the time of the death, the department made a very casual denial by just denying the same.5