BALRAM Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARN NIGAM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner complains that his Khokha which he was using for manufacturing and selling shoes was destroyed in a fire caused by electrical sparking. He further submits that the respondent - Authorities conducted an inquiry to assess the loss, liven though the actual loss was much more, but the authorities had found that the petitioner had suffered a loss of Rs. 34,980/ -. The petitioner prays that the respondents be directed to pay this amount.

(2.) No reply has been filed by any of the respondents. However, a written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jhirka. Even the Executive Engineer, who is a party in the case, has not controverted the facts averred in the writ petition? Why? There is no answer. In any case, nothing has been placed on record to show that a Senior Officer had conducted any inquiry into the matter. It appears that the Sub Divisional Officer in order to save his own skin has trotted out a story that the fire was caused on account of the carelessness of the person preparing and selling parched gram etc. In this case, we do not consider it necessary to probe any further. However, the fact is that the petitioner, who is a poor person, has lost his only source of livelihood. He was earning some money by making and selling shoes. On account of the fire, the work place and his stock have been destroyed.

(3.) In view of the locality of the circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the respondents shall pay an amount of Rs.30,000/ - to the petitioner within two weeks from today. In case of default, the petitioner shall be entitled to the payment alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from May 16, 1998 to the date of actual payment.