AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Samantaray, J.—The petitioner in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has claimed compensation form the opposite parties for the injuries sustained by her husband Prahallad Pallei coming in contact with naked live electric wire lying on his path.
The petitioner is the wife of Prahallad Pallei who suffered burn injuries due to electrocution on 30.3.1997 at pre-dawn hour when he had been with one Rabindra Nayak to call one Babaji Nayak for thatching of a house. The said Prahallad Pallei was a daily labourer and cultivator and was the sole bread earner of the family. When both of them proceeded on the village road to reach house of Babaji Nayak without any premonition and the impending danger that awaited them there near the house of said Babaji Nayak on the road, their legs came in contact with snapped live electric wire which was lying on the village road and Rabindra Nayak had electrocution death there at the spot but this Prahallad Pallei getting the electric shock was thrown away and survived. He receives serious burn injuries on legs, knee, right hand and other parts of his body which has rendered him invalid and bedridden and still he is not a position to do his normal day-to-day work. In the Writ Petition the petitioner has averred that immediately on the same day an FIR was lodged at Kendrapara police station about the death of Rabindra Nayak and the injury sustained by her husband due to electrocution and UD case No. 17 of 1997 was registered at Kendrapara P.S. It is also averred in the Writ Petition the husband of the petitioner was treated as an outdoor patient in the District headquarter Hospital and as per the advice of the doctors he was taking medicine lying bed-ridden. The accidental injury to the petitioner''s husband has been attributed to the negligence of the opposite for which she sent notices on 1.4.1997 and 21.4.1997 to the Secretary, Grid Corporation of Orissa ltd., but there was no response. According to the petitioner her husband was aged 33 years and due to his incapacity receiving burn injury due to electrocution it has become difficult to maintain the family and meet the medical expenses and as such she has claimed the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh with the interest of @ 18% per annum from the opposite parties for the loss of income of her husband and has sought for a direction from this Court to the opposite parties to pay the compensation with interest.
The opposite parties have entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit wherein they have totally disclaimed the liability and have pleaded that the claim of compensation made by the petitioner claiming herself to be the wife of Prahallad Pallei is totally misconceived and frivolous and that Writ Petition is not at all maintainable as no injury was sustained by the said Prahallad Pallei in the alleged electrical accident. In the said accident one Rabindra Nayak who was going to the house of Babaji Nayak came in contact with the live electric wire, which was lying on the path and died of electrocution. The husband of the petitioner has not at all sustained injury in the said accident and there is absolutely no material whatsoever produced to show that he had sustained any injury. It is stated in the counter affidavit in Annexure-2 i.e., the FIR lodged at Kendrapara P.S. there is no whisper that Prahallad Pallei had sustained any injury in electrical accident that took place in the early morning of 30.3.1997. Regarding the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Secretary, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., it has been stated in the counter that no such representation has been made at any point of time by this petitioner and when it is the specific stand of the opposite parties that this Prahallad Pallei had no at all sustained any personal injury the question of payment of compensation to the petitioner does not at all arise and for that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner although vehemently urged that in the said electrical accident the husband of the petitioner sustained injury for which an FIR was lodged and he was medically treated as an outdoor patient in the District Headquarters Hospital at Kendrapara and there was a news item published in daily News paper "The Sambad" regarding this accident, there is nothing on record to find that this petitioner''s husband had sustained any injury in the said accident. The name of this Prahallad Pallei appears nowhere and no document showing that he was treated is also forthcoming on record.
On the other hand Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties advancing his argument submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 Ori. 3412 (Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das), and AIR 2000 SC 3629 (West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Sachin Banarjee) the petitioner on the face of disputed facts should have approached the Civil Court instead of filing of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in the case of Chairman of Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra) in Paragraph 6 of the judgment held :
"It is the settled legal position that where disputed question of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the Writ Petitioners to approach the Civil Court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995."
In the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra) there was death due to electrocution and although death was admitted the Apex Court came to observe that the circumstance under which the death was caused and whether there was negligence on the part of the appellant the question being disputed could not have been decided properly on the basis of the affidavit only and the proper remedy was to file civil suit as there only the facts can determined on the basis of the evidence.
In the present case, the opposite parties has totally disclaimed their liability and have stated in their counter affidavit that the petitioner''s husband Prahallad Pallei was not at all injured in the said accident in the morning of 30.3.1997. It would not be out of place to note here that even in the FIR (Aannexure-2) there is no mention of the name of this Prahallad Pallei showing that in the incident he had received any injury and his name does not at all find place in the Annexure-2.
The facts being disputed the Writ Petition filed claiming compensation from the opposite parties is totally misconceived and no remedy can be available to the petitioner on her petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner so likes, she may approach the appropriate Civil Court and seek remedy there.
The Writ Petition therefore dismissed.
B.P. Das, J.
I Agree.