NAVAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a minor. He has filed this petition through his natural guardian and next friend Smt. Lata Devi. The petitioner came in contact with a high tension live wire (11 KV) commonly known as 'LahruChowari Line'. He got electrocuted. He received grievous burn and other injuries. He became unconscious. FIR was also registered on 18.3.2012. The petitioner was initially taken to Referal Hospital Chowari for treatment. He was referred to Dr. Rajendra Prasad Medical Hospital Tanda, District Kangra, H.P. He was operated upon on 25.3.2012. His both arms were amputated. He remained admitted in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Medical Hospital, Tanda, w.e.f. 18.3.2012 to 3.5.2012. The petitioner has suffered 100% disability as per Annexure P-4. He has become totally dependant upon family members even for day-to-day activities for his entire life. The petitioner was brilliant student and he had to discontinue his studies. The petitioner and his family members have also suffered mental agony and pain. The case of the petitioner, precisely, is that the respondents were duty bound to lay and maintain the 11 KV 'Lahru-Chowari High Tension Line' according to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) Respondents No. 2 & 3 have filed the reply. According to them, the accident has occurred due to the act of God and also on account of wanton and negligent act of the petitioner. According to the averments contained in the reply, as per Annexure RA-1, in between two ends of the poles, the line was crossing over a raised rock and there was no apprehension that any person can climb on the same. The petitioner had climbed on the rock and in the process got electrocuted. They have taken all the necessary precautions and there was no negligence on the part of the field/operating staff. The line was erected in accordance with the Rules and was equipped with all safety measures. It was patrolled periodically.

(3.) The petitioner has also filed a detailed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No. 2 & 3. The averments made in the reply are specifically denied in the rejoinder. According to the averments contained in the rejoinder, the high tension live wire was lying low which resulted in the electrocution of the petitioner.