AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kumar, CJ
[1] This petition was filed by the State of Manipur; the Commissioner/Secretary (Power), Government of Manipur; and the Manipur State Power Distribution Company Limited (MSPDCL) seeking review of the order dated 21-11-2019 passed by a learned Judge of this Court, allowing WP(C) No. 408 of 2019 filed by the respondent herein with a direction that he should be paid a sum of ₹. 2,00,000/- as ex gratia by the MSPDCL within a time frame. Perusal of the order manifests that the learned Judge proceeded under the assumption that the authorities had not filed a counter. However, that was not so as affidavit-in-opposition dated 19-08-2019 was filed by the MSPDCL on 16-10-2019. This is the sole ground on which review of the aforestated order dated 21-11-2019 is sought presently.
[2] The review petition is accordingly granted and the matter is taken up for re-hearing today. Heard Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the review petitioners, and Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.
[3] The respondent/writ petitioner is the father of Master L.T. Thanso Makang, who died due to electrocution at Viewland Baptist Church on 20-12-2018. Thereupon, the respondent/writ petitioner made representations dated 04-04-2019 and 08-04-2019 seeking ex gratia compensation. As the same failed to evoke a positive response, he approached this Court by way of the subject writ petition.
[4] In the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ petition, the Managing Director of the MSPDCL conceded that the petitioner’s son was electrocuted at Viewland Baptist Church on 20-12-2018 at about 08.00 am, while operating a water-pump set. He however stated that there was no negligence or fault on the part of the MSPDCL and, therefore, the issue of paying ex gratia compensation did not arise. This was the only ground on which the petitioner’s plea for ex gratia was sought to be denied.
[5] It is an admitted fact that the Government of Manipur introduced the policy of paying ex gratia compensation to the families of victims and the owners of livestock who had suffered due to electrical accidents as long back as in the year 2005. In supersession of previous orders in that regard, the Government of Manipur issued order dated 07-03-2018 fixing the quantum of ex gratia payable to the families of victims and owners of livestock in case of electrical accidents. Insofar as death of a human being is concerned, ex gratia of ₹. 2,00,000/- was to be granted thereunder. The order also made it clear that, with the unbundling and corporatization of the Electricity Department, Manipur, into two successor companies, i.e., MSPCL and MSPDCL, sanction and payment of ex gratia due to electrical accidents would be directly handled by the concerned company itself. Significantly, the order does not speak of any negligence or fault on the part of the authorities as a condition precedent for grant of ex gratia.
[6] That apart, the meaning of ex gratia literally is : ‘given or done as a gift or favour, not because there is a legal duty to do it’ (see Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 8th Edition). Similarly, Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, defines ex gratia to mean ‘made as a favour or gift, and not because of any legal duty; not legally necessary and ex gratia payment as a payment not legally required. It is therefore clear that payment of ex gratia is not owing to any ‘legal liability’ arising out of negligence, carelessness or fault and it is more in the nature of a concession based on the moral obligation of a Welfare State to provide succour to the bereaved family or to the victim, if still surviving.
[7] That being so, the argument of Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, basing on the aforestated affidavit-in-opposition, that there was no fault or negligence on the part of the State or the MSPDCL for the electrical accident which caused the death of the petitioner’s son, and that there is no consequential liability to pay ex gratia, cannot be countenanced.
[8] Viewed thus, even if the affidavit-in-opposition of the MSPDCL is taken into consideration, this Court finds no grounds to take a view different from that taken by the learned Judge while allowing the writ petition, vide order dated 21-11-2019.
The review petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.