SANKAR PARAMANIK Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-CUM-TEAM LEADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for a direction to opposite party no.1 to pay compensation for the death of Udhab Paramanik, father of petitioner no.1 and husband of petitioner no.2, in electrocution.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that on 15.7.2000 at about 6.00 A.M., while Udhab Paramanik was going to the field, he came in contact with the electric wire fell on the ground, as a result of which, he died instantiously. Thereafter an F.I.R. was lodged before the Bari Out Post. The same was sent to Binjharpur Police Station for registration, whereafter U.D.Case No.13 of 2000 was registered. On the same day, son of the deceased made an application before the Tahasildar, Bari and requested for enquiry and compensation. With this factual scenario, this writ petition has been filed for compensation.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.1 stating therein that on 15.7.2000, Arakhita Behera, Line Man -C reported to the Junior Engineer (Elect.), Bari that at about 6.00 A.M. when he reached at Dharpur came to know that one Udhab Paramanik of village Dharpur while going to the field to attend the call of nature, he met with an accident by coming in contact with the live electric line connected to the L.I. Point. The power supply to the said L.I. point was disconnected after closure of the cultivation. Due to storm and heavy wind pressure in the last night, the conductor was snapped and accident took place. On the basis of the report of the Line Man -C, the Junior Engineer (Elect.), Bari lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer -in -Charge of Bari Police Station. Similarly for the death of Udhab Paramanik, one Dipak Paramanik lodged an F.I.R. in the out post of Bari Police Station. The electric line was snapped due to coming in contact with the branches of the tree. The son of the deceased brought this fact to the notice of the Tahasildar, Bari. It is further stated that at no point of time any complaint had been made by the petitioners before opposite party no.1 regarding death of the deceased and snapping of conductor. The incident happened early in the morning. It is further stated that there was no negligence on the part of opposite party no.1 in maintaining the supply system. Due to natural calamity, the conductor was snapped and accident was caused.