RAJANI DEI Vs. CHAIRMAN ORISSA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is ironic in a State where power cuts and power failures are usual features, one Bhagata Mallik (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') lost his life on account of electrocution. This application has been filed by Rajani Dei, unfortunate widow of the deceased, claiming compensation from the Orissa State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board').

(2.) BACKGROUND facts, almost undisputed, are as follow: On 21.5.1992, in the evening, the deceased was cultivating his agricultural lands at a distance of about half furlong to the southern side of Japa -Iribina main road. Suddenly an overhead electric wire snapped and came in contact with him resulting in his instantaneous death. An U.D. case was registered in Ersama Police Station. The Officer -in -charge of Ersama Police Station visited the spot, found the dead body of the deceased lying on the land and a live 11 K.V. electric line hanging over the land. Inquest could not be conducted immediately due to the dangerous position of the live wire, and on his request live line was disconnected by the officials of the Board. Thereafter inquest was held, and final report was submitted on 30.5.1992. Post -mortem report indicated death due to extensive burn produced by high voltage electricity resulting in cardiac arrest and shock. It is petitioner's case that on account of negligence of the Board authorities, which is duty -bound to maintain poles and lines in order, deceased lost his life. This court has been moved for a direction to the Board and its functionaries to grant compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/ -.

(3.) THOUGH S.D.O. (Electrical), Tirtol, was examined by the Chief Engineer (Rural Engineering and Distribution), O.S.E.B., Bhubaneswar and agreed to accept reply, recommended that field and supervisory staff may not be held responsible. Preventive measures, as suggested, may provide safety in future. Those can be pressed into service to deny liability of the Board. The term 'compensation' as stated in the Oxford Dictionary signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered. 'Damages', on the other hand, constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for the loss or injury sustained, the value estimated in money, of something lost or withheld. The term 'compensation' etymologically suggests the image of balancing one thing against another; its primary signification is equivalence, and the secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent. Pecuniary damages are to be valued on the basis of 'full compensation'. That concept was first stated by Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1880) 5 AC 25. It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique frame that has been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Morris in H. West and Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1958 -65 ACJ 504 (HL, England). Compensation is an act which a court orders to be done, or money which a court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value for his loss, or be made whole in respect of his injury. It is a return for a loss or damage sustained. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. Object of providing compensation is to place claimant as far as possible in the same position financially as he was before accident. Broadly speaking, in the case of death basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses, etc. and loss to the estate. Object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring value of human life and measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation; but amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor it should be a source of profit of the person in whose favour it is agreed. Upjohn, L.J., in Charter House Credit v. Jolly (1963) 2 QB 683, remarked, 'the assessment of damages has never been an exact science; it is essentially practical.' Considering avocation the deceased pursued and the surrounding circumstances like his age and income at the time of death, compensation of Rs. 50,000/ -(Rupees fifty thousand) would be adequate. Learned Counsel for petitioner states that in case a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - be paid as compensation, there shall be no further claim lodged by the petitioner.