LALLAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') i.e., respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 as well as learned A.C. to G.P.-20 for respondents no. 1 to 3. The present writ application has been filed for seeking compensation of Rs. 5 lacs alongwith 18% interest to the petitioner on account of Electrocution of the father of the petitioner resulting in death due to snapping of electric wire.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are as under.

(3.) The petitioner alongwith his father were returning with agricultural produce on their bicycle and on their way, it is alleged that high tension electric wire running overhead fell down upon the petitioner as a result of which the bundle of dried maize plants being carried by the petitioner's father got burnt, he fell down on the ground and was electrocuted on 7.10.2003. This was also reported in the daily newspaper. The F.I.R. was lodged to this effect and it was clearly stated that the death was due to electrocution and upon the villagers informing the local officials of the electric sub-station, the line was cut before the body could be removed. U.D. case was registered and final form was submitted in which it was stated that death had been due to electrocution as a result of high wire tension snapping and falling on the father of the petitioner. The inquest report as well as post mortem report also states death due to electrocution and the body and skin being burnt substantially. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased, is entitled to compensation since the high tension wire of the respondent Board fell upon his father causing his death and the law being well settled in these matters. According to him, the respondent Board cannot deny the liability of compensation to the petitioner for such an incident. He emphasized the fact that death due to electrocution has not been denied and also the fact that it is nobody's case that death resulted from the negligence on the part of the deceased or that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent Board. He has submitted that as per the various decisions of the Courts it has been held that where the facts speak for themselves, the strict requirement of proof by leading evidence etc. is not required and the Courts can proceed to pass order on the basis of such apparent facts as emanating from the facts and the records. In fact the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitor' is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.