STATE OF J&K Vs. KULBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of J&K and its officers have filed the instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and order dated 25.03.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Allowing OWP no. 91/2004, a sum of Rs. 4.00 lac has been awarded to the claimant-respondents who are unfortunate parents of one Parminder Singh. Their son Parminder Singh was killed on account of electrocution caused by overhanging live wires. The learned Single Judge has found that the appellants failed to maintain ground clearance/height of 1100 KV high voltage electric line on spot as required under Rule 77 of J&K Electricity Rules 1978 notified vide SRO 396 dated 12.07.1978. It has also been found that the appellants allowed it to overhang at the height of less than 19 feet from the ground which resulted in unfortunate mishap consuming a precious life of Parminder Singh and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has held appellants guilty of negligence.

(2.) AN imaginary defence set up by the appellants in their reply did not find favour at the hands of the learned Single Judge. It was pleaded that the deceased in the first place negligently parked the vehicle under the high voltage electric line and thereafter slept on the roof of the truck. In the morning of 11.08.2002 when he woke up he stretched his arms upwards and touched the electric live line at the height of 21 feet from the ground. The learned Single Judge over turned the defence by observing that the facts and events discernable from the record available on the file, however, belie the respondents ' stand. The deceased cannot be said to have been negligent in parking his vehicle outside the Service Station on the side of Jammu-Pathankot Highway. The plea set up, unmindful of the fact that the high voltage electric line was laid/erected by the respondents all the way on the side of the Highway and the deceased was not expected to park the vehicle in the middle of the road.. '. The deceased in the circumstances cannot be held guilty of negligence in parking the vehicle at the place where the vehicle was parked. The learned Single Judge proceeded to observe that the plea of stretching of arms by the deceased is totally an imaginary stand taken by the appellants, and was not acceptable.

(3.) IT is well settled proposition of law by a catena of judgments of Hon 'ble the Supreme Court that if there is no dispute on facts then public law claim for compensation for contravention of fundamental rights to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is always sustained in addition to the remedy available in private law. Therefore, in exercise of writ jurisdiction adequate compensation can always be awarded by the Courts. In such like cases, the writ Court could also award compensation where the accident is not disputed nor it is denied that the resultant death was caused by electrocution. In the present case even the negligence could not be successfully disputed. In that regard, reliance may be placed on the views of Hon 'ble the Supreme Court expressed in para 2 of the judgment rendered in Parvati Devi & ors. v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & ors. (2000) 3 SCC 754; Para 10 of the judgment in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi & ors. (2000) 4 SCC 543 and Para 8 of M. P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & ors. (2002) 2 SCC 162. (Cf. Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & ors. Sukamani Dass & anr. (1999) 7 SCC 298.}