OM PATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Widow and children of deceased-Ram Rattan @ Rattan Singh have filed the present petition claiming compensation on account of death of Ram Rattan in electrocution from hanging power cable.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 is widow, petitioner No. 2 is daughter and petitioners No. 3 and 4 are sons of deceased-Ram Rattan. They are petitioners before this court claiming compensation. He had one elder daughter, who was already married. The date of birth of the deceased was 7.4.1956. He was agriculturist by profession owning about 13-1/2 acres of land. On 26.4.2003, deceased-Ram Rattan had gone on his motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-05-H-3880 towards his fields in village Bastli, but did not return back. The petitioners remained under the impression that as usual, he may have stayed back in the house near the fields. However, on the next morning, they received a message that Ram Rattan was lying dead towards village Brass having been electrocuted by 11,000 KVA line. The matter was reported to the police. Post-mortem of deceased-Ram Rattan was conducted. The doctor opined cause of death to be electrocution. DDR was registered on 27.4.2003. As the death of Ram Rattan was caused on account of loose power cables drawn by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short, 'the Nigam'), it was liable to compensate the petitioners. It is further claimed that annual income of the deceased was about Rs. 7,50,000/-, as besides having 13-1/2 acres of land, he had taken 14 acres of land on lease from Satpal and was running milk dairy with 10 buffaloes. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and others, 2002 AIR(SC) 551; M.S. Grewal and another v. Deep Chand Sood and others, 2001 8 SCC 151 and this court in CWP No. 4122 of 2006 Pooja Bansal and others v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 6.2.2014 and CWP No. 12213 of 2003 Ravinder Kaur and others v. Chandigarh Admn and others, decided on 6.2.2014.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submitted that as the petitioners have already got compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board on 3.10.2003, they are not entitled to any further compensation. They had even given an undertaking not to claim any further compensation. He denied negligence on the part of the Nigam while stating that on account of wind storm, the cable was loose. Such a situation is beyond the control of the Nigam. He further submitted that there is no proof of income of the deceased on record. The land is still with the family from which income is still available. Whatever compensation has been awarded to the petitioners, they are not entitled to any further amount.