MALATI SUTAR Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR WESCO BURLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ - towards compensation for the death of her husband Gandharba Sutar in electrocution.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner are that her husband Gandharba Sutar had gone to the house of his relative at Narayan Market, Rourkela. He stayed in the residence of his relative Shri Sanatan Moharana. On 8.8.2002 at about 1.45 P.M., 11 K.V. line from Lathikata 33/11 K.V. Sub -station to 11/4 K.V. distribution transformer of Narayan Market, Rourkela snapped and fell on the L.T. over head line. The L.T. over head line was charged and houses led from the L.T. line had been damaged. At that time her husband was sleeping on the floor of the house. The floor was charged, as a result of which, he was electrocuted. Thereafter, he was immediately shifted to Rourkela Government Hospital, Rourkela, where he was declared dead. On the very same day, F.I.R. was lodged before the Tangarpali Police Station by his brother -in -law, Sanatan Moharana. The same was registered as U.D.Case No.14 of 2002. The dead body, on completion of inquest, was sent for postmortem. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem, opined that the death was caused due to electrocution. On 9.8.2002 near about 200 persons from the village - Narayan Market had agitated in front of the office of the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle (WESCO), Rourkela and demanded compensation and employment of deceased's family member. On demand, the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Rourkela immediately made a part payment and handed over D.D. of Rs.35,000/ - to his relative and made promise to give rest of the amount later. With this factual scenario, the writ application has been filed for compensation.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite parties is that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be effectually adjudicated in a writ petition. The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage. It is stated that on the date of occurrence, the husband of the petitioner had gone to his relative residence at Narayan Market, Rourkela -7, where 33/11 KV line snapped and fell down due to heavy rain, as a result of which, he died. On 9.8.2002 about 900 people came to the office of opposite party no.2 and demanded compensation along with a job. During discussion, the representatives of the deceased - Gandharb Sutar had agreed to take Rs.35,000/ - towards compensation since the death of the deceased was caused due to electrocution. They had undertaken not to claim any further compensation in future. On the basis of the said written agreement executed between opposite party no.2 and the representatives of the deceased, opposite party no.2 gave Rs.35,000/ - through a cheque to the brother -in -law of the deceased. It is further stated that the accident took place due to heavy storm and the same was an act of God.