GARIBU RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed that the Respondents should be directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs, for the death of his wife Smt. Gokla, who is stated to have lost her life on 9 -9 -1991, while grazing cattle, as a result of electrocution. Even, prior to the filing of the writ petition, it appears that the Petitioner had agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 80,000 as compensation in respect of the death of his wife (vide Annexure R -4 dated 25 -9 -1993). Likewise, the Petitioner had also agreed (vide Annexure R -4/A dated 25 -9 -1993) that he had negotiated the amount of compensation with the Assistant Engineer and had to be paid a sum of Rs. 80,000 in respect of the compensation for the death of his wife. Though the Petitioner had agreed therein that he will not approach any court of law if the amount of Rs. 80,000 is paid to him, nevertheless, the Petitioner had approached this Court praying for an award of Rs. 5 lacs. The claim, so made, had been contested on behalf of the Respondents on several grounds, namely, there was no negligence on their part and that the writ petition was not maintainable and the deceased had brought about her own death. A reference was also made to the compensation fixed in the sum of Rs. 80,000 in respect of the death of the wife of the Petitioner, though, ultimately, the Respondents prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

(2.) CONSIDERING the earlier stand taken by the Petitioner as well as by the H.P. State Electricity Board, when the writ petition was heard for some time on the last occasion, the Court suggested to the counsel for the electricity board that the board may sympathetically consider the case of the Petitioner, particularly, in the light of the agreement of the Petitioner to receive a sum of Rs. 80,000 as compensation in relation to the death of his wife and also make available that amount of Rs. 80,000 to the Petitioner as early as possible. We are happy to find that in response to the suggestion, so made, counsel for the electricity board now produced before the Court a communication No. HPSEB (Sectt)/LS/HC/CWP No. 1625/93, Garibu Ram v. H.P.S.E.B /94 -94 -1031 -34, dated 17 -6 -1994, to the effect that the question of payment of Rs. 80,000 had been considered by the competent authority and the Board had decided to settle the matter on a lump sum payment of Rs. 80,000 in full and final satisfaction of the claim of the Petitioner. The ready response and fine gesture by the H.P. State Electricity Board in this regard is appreciated and placed on record. Though learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a feeble attempt to contend that the compensation amount of Rs. 80,000 now agreed to be paid by the electricity board is meagre and inadequate, we are not in a position to accept this, for, the Petitioner in the course of the earlier negotiations had agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 80,000 and he would be held bound by that. Learned Counsel for the electricity board pays that three weeks time may be granted to the electricity board to deposit the amount of Rs. 80,000 as per its communication dated 17 -6 -1994. To this course, counsel for the Petitioner cannot have any objection, as, the Petitioner will be now able to see the colour of the coin, at least, if not before. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances, the electricity board is directed to invest the amount of Rs. 80,000 in the name of the Petitioner, as a fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank at Rohru for a period of 5 years from the date of investment. The Bank, with which the investment is made, is directed not to alter the investment in any manner and even permit the raising of any loan on the security of the investment. In order to enable the Petitioner to meet his expenses every month, the Bank is directed to make available to Petitioner, Garibu Ram son of Shri Jiusi, Resident of Village Patsari, P.O. Hatkoti, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P., the interest on the investment once in six month's. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of, as settled between the parties. There will be no order as to costs.