SANTILATA PALLEI Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has claimed compensation form the opposite parties for the injuries sustained by her husband Prahallad Pallei coming in contact with naked live electric wire lying on his path.

(2.) THE petitioner is the wife of Prahallad Pallei who suffered burn injuries due to electrocution on 30.3.1997 at pre -dawn hour when he had been with one Rabindra Nayak to call one Babaji Nayak for thatching of a house. The said Prahallad Pallei was a daily labourer and cultivator and was the sole bread earner of the family. When both of them proceeded on the village road to reach house of Babaji Nayak without any premonition and the impending danger that awaited them there near the house of said Babaji Nayak on the road, their legs came in contact with snapped live electric wire which was lying on the village road and Rabindra Nayak had electrocution death there at the spot but this Prahallad Pallei getting the electric shock was thrown away and survived. He receives serious burn injuries on legs, knee, right hand and other parts of his body which has rendered him invalid and bedridden and still he is not a position to do his normal day -to -day work. In the Writ Petition the petitioner has averred that immediately on the same day an FIR was lodged at Kendrapara police station about the death of Rabindra Nayak and the injury sustained by her husband due to electrocution and UD case No. 17 of 1997 was registered at Kendrapara P.S. It is also averred in the Writ Petition the husband of the petitioner was treated as an outdoor patient in the District headquarter Hospital and as per the advice of the doctors he was taking medicine lying bed -ridden. The accidental injury to the petitioner's husband has been attributed to the negligence of the opposite for which she sent notices on 1.4.1997 and 21.4.1997 to the Secretary, Grid Corporation of Orissa ltd., but there was no response. According to the petitioner her husband was aged 33 years and due to his incapacity receiving burn injury due to electrocution it has become difficult to maintain the family and meet the medical expenses and as such she has claimed the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh with the interest of @ 18% per annum from the opposite parties for the loss of income of her husband and has sought for a direction from this Court to the opposite parties to pay the compensation with interest.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner although vehemently urged that in the said electrical accident the husband of the petitioner sustained injury for which an FIR was lodged and he was medically treated as an outdoor patient in the District Headquarters Hospital at Kendrapara and there was a news item published in daily News paper 'The Sambad' regarding this accident, there is nothing on record to find that this petitioner's husband had sustained any injury in the said accident. The name of this Prahallad Pallei appears nowhere and no document showing that he was treated is also forthcoming on record. On the other hand Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties advancing his argument submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 Ori. 3412 (Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das), and AIR 2000 SC 3629 (West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Sachin Banarjee) the petitioner on the face of disputed facts should have approached the Civil Court instead of filing of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in the case of Chairman of Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra) in Paragraph 6 of the judgment held : 'It is the settled legal position that where disputed question of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the Writ Petitioners to approach the Civil Court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995.'