CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. DANDAPANI BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dtd. 25/11/2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.432 of 2008 whereby the learned Single Judge while considering the matter has granted minimum compensation of Rs.3,00,000.00 (Rupees Three Lakhs).

(2.) Facts of the case of the petitioner are that the petitioner, who is the father of the deceased Raja @ Sagar Kumar Behera, claims compensation for the death of his only son aged about 23 years, who died on 23/8/2007 at about 3.30. P.M. due to electric burnt. On the very same day, the petitioner lodged an F.I.R. before Khandagiri Police Station intimating the death of his son by electric burnt. The said F.I.R. was registered as Khandagiri U.D. Case No.33 of 2007 corresponding to U.D.G.R.Case No.403 of 2007. Consequent upon lodging of the F.I.R., the dead body of the deceased was sent to the Capital Hospital for post mortem. The post mortem report prepared by the competent authority clearly indicates that the injuries are ante mortem and by charge of electric wire. It is further submitted by the petitioner that there is a drawal of 11 KV electric line over 4' height of the roof of the building and for such drawal of electric line, there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties and on account of such negligence the son of the petitioner came in contact of such live wire and ultimately caused a tragic death. Petitioner further submits that in spite of his repeated approach to the opposite parties for grant of compensation, the opposite parties have not given any attention to the claim of the petitioner compelling him to file the writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, the opposite parties 1 to 4 on their appearance filed a joint counter affidavit indicating therein that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has approached the High Court before availing alternative remedy available under law. The writ petition involved disputed question of fact which needs to be proved by oral as well as documentary evidence. Negligence has been seriously disputed by the opposite parties. Unless negligence on the part of the opposite parties is proved with cogent materials, liability cannot be saddled on them. The opposite parties further disputed the fact of son of the petitioner died due to coming in contact with live electric wire on the spot. They claimed that the line in question was drawn over the ground with sufficient height as required under law. Drawal of the line was long before construction of the house. In these premises, the opposite parties claimed that the owner of the house knowing fully well regarding the existence of the electric line raised height of the house where the incident took place. Opposite parties, therefore, claimed that owner of the house, where the petitioner and his son were tenants, is responsible for the tragic incident. Petitioner having fully aware from the date of their occupation in the rented house regarding existence of the live electric wire over and above the roof, had taken the house on rent at his own risk and the son of the petitioner, therefore, died for his own negligence. Under the circumstances, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation. It is also further submitted by the opposite parties that after the tragic incident, the owner of the house by submitting application has applied for shifting of the line intimating therein his willingness for depositing the required expenses.