NALINI PRADHAN Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CESCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions, since common questions of fact and law are involved, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. In both the writ petitions the legal heirs of the deceased Surendra Pradhan and Nityananda Khamari have approached this Court assailing the non-grant of compensation for their death due to electrocution.

(2.) The fact of the case in hand is that on 17.5.2003 when the deceased Surendra Pradhan had been to his paddy field to spread manure along with his brother-in-law, namely, Nityananda Khamari, suddenly he came in contact with a live electric wire which was lying on the ground. Immediately after getting in touch with the said electric wire, Surendra Pradhan fell on the ground with a loud cry and sometime thereafter his body became still. Nityananda Khamari, who was driving the bullock cart, jumped off the cart and ran towards deceased Surendra Pradhan with a purpose to save him. But when Nityananda touched the body of Surendra, he fell down on the ground and died due to electrocution. Thereafter, the younger daughter of Surendra, who was accompanying both the deceased, ran home and reported her family members about the incident. On getting information, the co-villagers of the deceased rushed to the spot and found that both the deceased persons have died due to coming in contact with a live electric wire, which had fallen on the ground. Thereafter the

(3.) Pursuant to the notice, opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that the factum of the death of Surendra Pradhan and Nityananda Khamari have been admitted on the date of occurrence due to electrocution. They have also admitted the cause of death as declared by the doctor and also admitted the registration of U.D. Case No. 7 of 2003 before Tangi Police Station. It is further admitted that there was "Rasta-rok" by the local people and due to announcement of extratia payment of Rs.5000/- to each of the victims by the Sub-Collector, Khurda, the "Rasta-rok" was withdrawn. But at the same time, it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 that there is no cause of action to file a case against him as the place of death is not coming under the Electrical Division of opposite party no.2 and he has no knowledge about the incident and nobody approached him for the compensation as stated. Further it is stated that he is no way connected with the death, therefore due to non-joinder of proper parties, the writ petition has to be dismissed. Apart from the same, an objection was raised with regard to the limitation because, the incident was of the year 2003 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2007. Therefore, in view of Section 82 of the Limitation Act and Section 1 A Note 15.2 of the Fatal Accident Act, the writ petition having been filed after more than three years, is barred by limitation.