SASMITA SAHOO & OTHERS Vs. CESCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Surendra Sahoo in electrocution.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that on 29.8.2004 at about 5 A.M when Surendra Sahoo, nephew of the petitioner no.1, had gone to pluck flower, he came in contact with the electric wire, as a result of which he died due to electrocution. On hearing the cry, the husband of the petitioner no.1 rushed to the spot. He also came in contact with the electric wire and died due to electrocution. On the basis of FIR lodged by petitioner no.1, a case was registered. The police made inquest and sent the dead body for post mortem. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the cause of death was due to electrocution.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating therein that the deceased came in contact with the electric wire at the back side of house, which was taken by the neighbour, namely, Sudersan Behera unauthorisedly. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. It is further stated that G.R Case No.958 of 2004 was registered against Sudersan Behera and Damodar Pradhan, which is pending. It is further stated that the petitioners have not furnished any documents in support of their relationship and status with the deceased and the age and wages of the deceased.