ABSHISH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Scope of Dispute The writ petition is a claim for compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner by coming in contact with a live electric wire. The incident had taken place on 06.02.2000 when the petitioner, who was a minor aged about 7 years at that time, was playing on the roof and came in contact with the electric wires that resulted in serious burn injuries. Subsequently, his left hand was amputated from the shoulder and all his toes were also amputated. There was also serious cosmetic disfigurement on his leg and a partial bend resulting in arc of the left leg.

(2.) The case comes by means of writ petition after representations given to the Electricity Board imputing negligence on its part as having caused the ultimate untoward event. The electricity Board presents a stout defence through its counsel, contending that the high tension wires had been drawn several years prior to the construction of the house and the proximity of the high tension wires was the result of a building violation by putting up a construction without appropriate sanction from the local body. The defence is, therefore, that the accident was not the result of any negligence on the part of the respondents but was on account of the illegal construction made by the petitioner's father or his predecessor in erecting a construction so perilously close to the electric connection.

(3.) On pure issues of fact, while the petitioner would contend through his father that there had been representations and appeals to the Electricity Board pointing out to the dangers due to the proximity of the electrical wires and the imminent threat to safety for any occupant of any house in that road where the overhead wires had been laid. The respondents have denied these representations as well and contended that these representations have been created for the purpose of the case. An adjudication on a pure question of fact shall not be appropriate in writ jurisdiction where there is no scope for evidence of parties and there is still no scope for deciding the veracity of the claims of the respective contesting parties. The petitioner has responded to these denials by producing before me the copies of letters and representations which had been sent and the registration receipts or endorsements on the copies containing acknowledgments of the receipts. I have seen the notices sent on various dates namely on 28.06.1996, 08.10.1996, 07.02.2000 and 25.01.2001. There is also yet another representation by Mohalla Sudhar Committee of Partap Nagar, Street No.1, Miller Ganj on 08.10.1996 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, PSEB. The initial letters or representations related to the period of 1996 where they have been repeated reminders to the Electricity Board that the wires posed a great danger to the safety of the public. The letters dated 28.06.1996 and 08.10.1996 bear the seal of the electricity department and acknowledgment of receipts. The representation through the Mohalla Committee is accompanied with a postal receipt of despatch of the letter through registered post. The notices dated 07.02.2000 and 25.01.2001 are also attached with registration receipts and certificate of posting endorsement from the post office. These documents no doubt have been served across the table from the bar but I still have no doubt in my mind about the genuineness of the documents looking at the age of the paper, the postal receipts, the acknowledgments of receipts by the Electricity Board and assertions already made in the writ petition with copies of documents attached to the writ petition even when the petition was filed in the year 2001. All these factors vouch for their genuineness and I will take not the issue of a disputed question as coming seriously in the way for the documents produced evoke confidence that they are true. A certain latitude of discretion is to be made in these proceedings and we cannot direct parties for a civil court trial only because some questions of fact are disputed. It is not uncommon where statements or affidavits are denied in the replies and there exists a need for Courts to still examine in the face of express denials whether the assertions could be true or not. On the examination of documents produced before me, I am convinced that they represent the correct state of affairs and there had been representations prior to the incident pointing out to the Electricity Board the dangerous installations.