PANGU RAM Vs. H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition, petitioner-Pangu Ram is claiming compensation from the respondents for causing the death of his wife due to electric shock from the electric supply line of the respondents. The petitioner is a poor man belonging to Scheduled Caste family, therefore, he has preferred this petition in person. Considering the seriousness of the matter, this Court appointed Shri K.L. Bali as legal aid counsel for the petitioner. The case arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his wife Smt. Thopli (45) went to the house of Leehkhu Ram, son of Shri Molak Ram in the village to bring flour for preparing 'Patroru'. Main electricity line passed by the house of Leehkhu Ram. Due to heavy rains a tree had fallen on the electric wires as a result of which electric wire was broken and was lying on the earth. Since the electric current was running through it the earth had caught it on August 8, 1994. A report to this effect was lodged with the officials of the respondents which was duly noted down in the complaint book. It was lodged by Sawnu Ram, son of Shri Piru Ram resident of village Rathoa, District Mandi but the respondents and their officials did not take immediate steps to remove the electric wire or repair the same.

(3.) THE respondents have objected to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that there was no negligence on their part in running and maintaining the electric supply system. The deceased died on account of her own negligence. No right of the petitioner has been violated and this kind of claim with disputed facts, cannot be appropriately adjudicated by this Court. All safety measures had been provided on the said line and it was free from danger. Departmental investigation report (Annexure RA-1) demonstrates that the deceased died on account of her own fault. The conductor of L.T. line got snapped due to bad weather/heavy rain and falling of tree thereon. It was thus an act of God beyond the reasonable control of the replying respondents, therefore, they cannot be held responsible in any way or in any manner. The claim is vague, uncertain and inflated.