Parigabai W/O Ashok Kakde And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1517 Bom

                                         1
                                                     Criminal Writ Petition 1952 of 2015.odt


            THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1592 OF 2015


1.     Parigabai w/o Ashok Kakde,
       Age: 52 years, Occu: agriculture,
       R/o. Dahegaon (Bor), Tq. Vaijapur,
       Dist. Aurangabad.

2.     Dattu s/o Ashok Kakde,
       Age: 30 years, Occu: agriculture,
       R/o. As above.

3.     Gokul s/o Ashok Kakde,
       Age: 28 years, Occu: agriculture,
       R/o. As above.                               ... PETITIONERS


               VERSUS


1.     The State of Maharashtra
       through the Collector Aurangabad.

2.     The Executive Engineer,
       Maharashtra State Electricity
       Distribution Co. Aurangabad.

3.     The Deputy Engineer
       Maharashtra State Electricity
       Distribution Co. Ltd. Vaijapur.

4.     Chief Electric Inspector /            [ Amendment carried out as
       Electric Inspector,                   per Court order dated 13/12/16 ]
       Aurangabad.
                                                    ... RESPONDENTS
                                  ...
Mr. A. B. Gaikwad, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. A. V. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. A. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
                                  ...




 ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2021                  ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 15:26:36 :::
                                          2
                                                    Criminal Writ Petition 1952 of 2015.odt




                                   WITH
               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 497 OF 2017
                                IN
              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1592 OF 2015


1.     Parigabai w/o Ashok Kakde,
       Age: 52 years, Occu: agriculture,
       R/o. Dahegaon (Bor), Tq. Vaijapur,
       Dist. Aurangabad.

2.     Dattu s/o Ashok Kakde,
       Age: 30 years, Occu: agriculture,
       R/o. As above.

3.     Gokul s/o Ashok Kakde,
       Age: 28 years, Occu: agriculture,
       R/o. As above.                              ... APPLICANTS


               VERSUS


1.     The State of Maharashtra
       through the Collector Aurangabad.

2.     The Executive Engineer,
       Maharashtra State Electricity
       Distribution Co. Aurangabad.

3.     The Deputy Engineer
       Maharashtra State Electricity
       Distribution Co. Ltd. Vaijapur.

4.     The Chief Electric Inspector, Aurangabad.
                                                   ... RESPONDENTS

                                  ...
Mr. A. B. Gaikwad, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. A. V. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. A. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
                                  ...




 ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 15:26:36 :::
                                         3
                                                          Criminal Writ Petition 1952 of 2015.odt




                                   CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
                                           B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.

                                   DATE       :   22nd January, 2021.



JUDGMENT: ( Per T. V. Nalawade, J. )


.                 The petition is filed for relief of compensation of rupees

ten lakh in respect of death of one Ashok Kakde, who died due to

electrocution.

2                 Both the sides are heard.



3                 Petitioner No.1 is the widow of deceased Ashok and

Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are sons of deceased Ashok. The incident

took place on 31st July, 2014 in land Gat No.12 owned by Ashok. It is

contended that on that day, there was rain and the deceased was

working in the field. It is contended that he had gone for starting

electric motor and at that time Petitioner No.1 was present in the

house, which is situated in the same land. It is contended that supply

of electricity was taken from a pole situated near the well for electric

pump. It is contended that when Petitioner No.1 heard hue and cry of

the deceased, she came out and she saw that the deceased was

Criminal Writ Petition 1952 of 2015.odt

lying near the well. It is contended that the deceased was shifted to

Government Hospital, Vaijapur, but the doctor declared that he was

already dead.

4 It is the contentions of the Petitioners that during inquiry

made under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

statements were recorded, inquest was prepared and postmortem

was conducted and it became clear that the death took place due to

cardio respiratory arrest due to electric shock. It is contended that the

incident took place due to fault of Respondent Nos.2 and 3,

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Aurangabad as

proper steps were not taken in respect of one tension wire of

aforesaid pole and due to that there was power leakage. The said

electric pole was at the distance of hardly 10 to 15 feet from the well

and so it is contended that compensation needs to be given by

Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

5 Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed reply. They admitted

that the death took place due to shock due to electricity, but they have

denied that there was negligence on the part of Respondent Nos.2

and 3 and due to that the incident took place. It is contended that for

Gat No.12 electricity connection was given in favour of Bhausaheb

Criminal Writ Petition 1952 of 2015.odt

Kakde, brother of deceased and the deceased had taken illegal

connection from said kitkat to his agricultural pump. It is contended

that the deceased was engaged in taking supply of electricity from the

pole illegally and during that activity, the incident might have

happened. It is contended that the Electrical Inspector carried out

investigation and his report is also to that effect. They have prayed

for dismissal of the petition.

6 Respondent No.4, Electrical Inspector has filed reply and

Respondent No.4 has supported the contentions made by

Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

7 It is not disputed that Ashok died due to cardio respiratory

arrest due to electric shock. The postmortem report in that regard is

available, which is not disputed. The postmortem report shows that in

column No.17, there is mention that there were surface wounds like

abrasions at left index finger and the left heel. The inquest report is

also not disputed and in the inquest report dated 31st July, 2014,

Panch witnesses gave opinion that the death took place before 18:50

hours on 31st July, 2014 due to electric shock. The spot Panchanama

was prepared on 1st August, 2014. In the reply, this document is not

disputed and it shows that one cement electric pole was fixed in the

Criminal Writ Petition 1952 of 2015.odt

field and from that pole there were four wires and out of the four wires,

three green wires were taken upto the kitkat board and from the kitkat

board there was a black wire upto the starter box. One cable wire

was taken from the pole upto the house of Karhari Kakde. There

were two tension wires fixed to the pole. To one tension wire, there

was a stay insulator, but to other tension wire, there was no stay

insulator. Around the electric pole, there was Binni grass. The spot

Panchanama shows that the well was situated at the distance of 75

feet from the pole and only one electric motor was fixed on the well.

8 The submissions made and the record show that the

police had formed opinion that it was fault of Respondent Nos.2 and 3

as there was no stay insulator to one tension wire. However, the

Electrical Inspector gave opinion that there was possibility that the

deceased had tried to handle the kitkat and during that handling he

had come in contact with open, live cable coming out of kitkat and he

had sustained electric shock. This report is dated 4 th January, 2017.

It can be said that this report cannot be accepted as expert opinion as

the incident had taken place on 31st July, 2014. It appears that some

statements were shown to be recorded by the Electrical Inspector

during inquiry in the year 2017 and on those statements signatures of

the relative of deceased including the son of deceased, were

Criminal Writ Petition 1952 of 2015.odt

obtained. On that basis, submission was made for Respondent Nos.2

and 3 that the report given by the Electrical Inspector can be

accepted.

9 As against the aforesaid record created by the Electrical

Inspector, there is a record of spot Panchanama made by the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad on the basis of direction given by this

Court in the present proceeding on 3rd May, 2017. The report of the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that the land where the pole

was fixed, was belonging to joint family of deceased and his brother.

He formed opinion that on that day there was no fault with the wires

coming out of starter. He formed opinion that on the day of incident,

as there was no stay insulator to one tension wire, the current must

have gone to the land on that day as there was rain. He considered

the other record like spot Panchanama and he noticed that the record

created immediately after the incident shows that the deceased was

present near the tension wire as he was cutting the Binni grass.

10 Thus, on one hand, the record, which was immediately

created and the information given by the relative of the deceased

show that there was fault like not keeping stay insulator on one

tension wire, and on the other hand, there is an opinion of the

Criminal Writ Petition 1952 of 2015.odt

Electrical Inspector obtained in the year 2017. The aforesaid

circumstances show that the electric connection was taken for the well

and there was no illegality in it. Even in the report of the Electrical

Inspector there is no mention that there was some illegality noticed by

him. Due to all these circumstances, there is clear probability that the

incident took place due to fault of Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

11 The learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 drew

the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

He produced on record Administrative Circular No.533 dated 9th

March, 2016. He submitted that when there is opinion of the Electrical

Inspector of aforesaid nature, due weight needs to be given to the

opinion.

12 On the other hand, the learned counsel for Petitioners

placed reliance on the following cases:

            a)     AIR 2017 Supreme Court 718, (State of
                   Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Naval Kumar
                   alias Rohit Kumar) ;

            b)     2002 AIR (SC) 551, (M.P.Electricity Board Vs.
                   Shail Kumari) ; and






                                                       Criminal Writ Petition 1952 of 2015.odt


            c)     Writ Petition No.3212 of 2016, (Laxmibai Vs.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Ors.) decided by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court on 29th January, 2020.

13 In the case decided by this Court of Laxmibai cited

(supra), this Court has considered the contentions in respect of the

provisions of the Electricity Act and the Administrative Circular. In the

present matter, no financial aid was given even when fatal accident

took place. The submissions made by the learned counsel for

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 show that the amount of atleast rupees four

lakh can be given. This Court holds that, for the reasons already

given, the opinion of the Electrical Inspector cannot be used. Thus,

the compensation needs to be given to the Petitioners, who are

dependents of the deceased.

14 As per the postmortem report, the age of the deceased

was 50 years. This Court is expected to give the compensation as

remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, public

law remedy. This Court has power to grant reasonable compensation

and it is independent of the proceeding, which can be filed in Civil

Court under the law of torts. In the present case also, this Court holds

Criminal Writ Petition 1952 of 2015.odt

that it is a case of strict liability due to the negligence of Respondent

Nos.2 and 3. In the year 2014, even the Tribunal appointed under the

Motor Vehicles Act could have presumed monthly income of such

person as Rs.4,000/-. In view of the age of the deceased, 11 can be

adopted as multiplier. If Rs.1,000/- is deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased, loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,000/-.

Thus, the total amount of loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,96,000/-

i.e. (3000x12×11 = 396000). Petitioner No.1 is widow of the

deceased and she can get some amount as there is loss of

consortium and that amount can be Rs.50,000/- and for funeral

expenses the amount of Rs.25,000/- can be given. This Court holds

that the lump-sum amount of Rs.4,00,000/- can be given in this case

in respect of the death of Ashok Kakde. In the result, the following

order is passed:

ORDER

I. The criminal writ petition is allowed as against Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

II. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Only) in respect of the death of Ashok Kakde. The amount is to be deposited in this Court within 45 days from today.

Criminal Writ Petition 1952 of 2015.odt

III. If the amount is not deposited within 45 days, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

IV. After depositing of the amount, affidavit is to be filed by the Petitioners regarding parents of the deceased and only after that order of disbursement will be made.

V. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

VI. Other connected applications are disposed of.

       [ B. U. DEBADWAR, J. ]                   [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ndm