KANCHAN BAGARTI Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SOUTHCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for a direction to opposite party nos.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.6,87,000/ - towards compensation for the death of Biswamitra Bagarti, husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioners 2 to 5, in electrocution.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that on 6.7.2005 at about 3.00 P.M., while Biswamitra Bagarti was going to the nearby field with his cattle for grazing, he came in contact with an electric wire snapped from a pole passing on the area for supply of electricity to the different villages, as a result of which, he died on the spot due to electrocution. One Gurudev Mukhi, the Gramrakhi of Tikabali Police Station during his patrolling noticed the same and immediately reported the matter to the O.I.C., Tikabali Police Station. After receipt of complaint, U.D. Case No.2 of 2005 was registered. The dead body was sent to D.H.H. Phulbani for autopsy. After completion of postmortem, the doctor opined that the death of Biswamitra Bagarti was due to cardiogenic shock as a result of electric shock. After enquiry, the police had submitted the final report. With this factual scenario, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for compensation.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating therein that the opposite parties are not the 'State' and as such the writ petition against a private company is not maintainable. It is further stated that they had no knowledge regarding registration of Tikabali Police Station U.D.Case No.2 of 2005 and submission of final report before the SDM, Balliguda in U.D.G.R.Case No.36 of 2005. During investigation, the police had neither examined the opposite parties nor the employees of opposite parties. They had no knowledge about the age, profession and monthly income of the deceased.