BABLI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to modify the letter/order dated 20-12-2006 (Annexure P-7) vide which rs. 80,000/- has been assessed a the compensation amount on account of death of sanju, son of the petitioners, and further directing them to pay the enhanced compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 7 lacs alongwith 24% interest per annum from the date of accident til! its realisation. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of any direction/order for taking penal action / registration of case for the negligent act of respondent No. 7 and his subordinates for the mishap in which the petitioner lost their son, punishable under Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioners, as stated in the writ petition, in brief, is that Sanju was son of the petitioners. He was born on 10-12-2001 and was a student of first class. He died on 4-8-2005 due to falling of electricity pole. On 1-8-2005 a written complaint was made to s. O. O. (Electricity department) i. e. respondent no. 7, Naguran by Sarpanch and other villagers including grandfather of the deceased saying that there was a titled electricity pole which could fall at any time. Respondent No. 7, however, did not pay any heed to the said request. On 4-8-2005 at about 5. 50 p. m. the said electricity pole broke and fell upon Sanju, who was playing in the street alongwith other children as a result of this he died at the spot. A. D. D. R. was got registered with the police with regard to the accident (Annexure P-2 ). Post mortem examination was got conducted on the dead body of the deceased. The petitioners approached the respondents for compensation on account of death of their son due to their negligence. After about one year and fou r months of the accident, the petitioners received an office, order No. 228/a. C. /j. J.-389 dated 20-12-2006 (Annexure P-7) that rs. 80. 000/- had been sanctioned a compensation amount. However, till date, amount had not been disbursed to the said petitioners. The amount of compensation, calculated by the respondents, was on the lower side. Hence, the present petition was filed by the petitioners.

(2.) THE respondents in their written statement averred that site was in the knowledge of the villagers and the u. H. B. V. N. L Staff had warned the villagers to be careful while passing nearby the pole. The respondent or its employees only could not be held responsible forthe alleged mishap. The guilty officials has been held responsible and the payment of compensation of Rs. 80,000/-awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased had been recovered from the officials. The petitioners despite intimation had not withdrawn the said amount. The amount of compensation had been correctly awarded to the petitioners in terms of Indian Fatal Accident Act, 1855 read with Schedule' to Workmen compensation Act, 1923.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the amount of compensation allowed to the petitioners deserves to be enhanced.