LAWS(ORI)-2014-11-60

GAYATRI BEHERA Vs. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Decided On November 20, 2014
Gayatri Behera Appellant
V/S
The Chief Executive Officer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a minor alleging to be suffering from electrocution, has filed the writ petition seeking a direction directing the opposite parties to pay compensation amounting to Rs.6,75,000/-(rupees six lakhs seventy-five thousand) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of mishap till payment.

(2.) Per contra, the opposite parties on their appearance filed a counter strongly denying the allegations made against them. The opposite parties in their counter went to the extent of submitting that the accident as narrated by the petitioner was beyond the knowledge of the opposite parties, they have even gone to the extent of denying that there is no accident even. Opposite parties have also submitted to lack any knowledge of any F.I.R. being lodged by Jaykrushna Behera, the grandfather of the petitioner and they strongly disputed the disability certificate. The opposite parties refused to accept the responsibility on the ground that there was no information at all to them of this accident at any point of time. The opposite parties further submitted that there is no material to prove on spending for her treatment. They disputed the allegation of suffering by the petitioner on account of electrocution.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid affidavit, there is no dispute that there is an accident due to snapping of wire and there is no dispute that due to cause of said snapping of wire, the petitioner became the victim and she has suffered. The certificate on disability as granted by the Team of Orthopedicians engaged in District Headquarter Hospital, Khurda also clearly indicates that the petitioner has suffered 70% disability. The final form in the F.I.R. at the instance of grandfather of the petitioner also indicates that the petitioner has suffered due to electric burn. Under the above circumstances, I hold the opposite parties responsible for the incident and the petitioner has suffered on account of the accident, i.e., due to negligence of their's as they have failed to perform their duties as enshrined under Rules 91 and 92 of the Orissa Electricity Rules, 1956 and as such they are liable to pay compensation. Delving with compensation part, I would like to discuss the definition of negligence as well the interpretation of word negligence by the Hon'ble Apex Court which runs as follows:-