SHAKUNTLA Vs. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case falls within the legal principles laid down in CWP No.14046 of 2012 titled 'Raman Vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on 02.07.2013, in a case of electrocution and compensation with the judgment reported in 2013 (3) ACC 570. The only difference is that Raman was injured grievously, while in the present case, a 13 years old boy died in coming into contact with a live 33000 KW over head power transmission lines passing over the roof of his neighbour's house situated in Village and Post Office Loharheri, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana. After receiving the high voltage electric shock, the injured boy was shifted to General Hospital, Jhajjar for treatment on the date of the accident i.e. 14.08.2016 from where he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak for life saving treatment. Unfortunately he succumbed to burn injuries due to electric shock on 19.08.2016. He was the younger of the two sons of his parents, that is, mother and pre-deceased father.

(2.) The widow mother of the deceased - Neeraj is the petitioner claiming compensation for the loss of her teenage child. It is the case of the petitioner that Neeraj was playing cricket with other children. The cricket ball had fallen on the roof of a neighbour's house and Neeraj went there to collect the ball like any other boy would do in his place. There he accidently came into contact with the high voltage transmission line sagging at a very low level passing over the colony and the house and within arm's reach. The high tension transmission lines were not properly tightened to the poles due to which reason one of the offending cables touched unwary, unknowing Neeraj as he must have tried to retrieve the cricket ball from the roof and there met his unfortunate fate. The death is sadder still for the poor mother. The post-mortem report confirms death as a result of electrocution. The Doctor's opinion is on record. She has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs from the UHBVNL for death due to negligence and carelessness of the supplier of deadly electrical energy.

(3.) The respondent UHBVNL has put in its written statement taking the defence that the neighbouring house was an illegal and unauthorized construction and, therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. There was no loose connection or breakage in the cable. Furthermore, the lines were drawn years before the colony came up and hence they are not at fault. The petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of a civil suit. In my view since the facts are not seriously disputed by the respondents therefore writ is maintainable against the Nigam.