Gauhati High Court
Paipuli Gohain vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 2 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010097412021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3543/2021
PAIPULI GOHAIN
W/O. LT. LALIT GOHAIN, VILL. TEKELAGAON, P.O. KOPAHERA, P.S.
MAKIRBHETA, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782103.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, POWER DEPTT.,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL)
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTANBAZAR
GAUHATI-781001.
3:THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR CUM ADVISER
GOVT. OF ASSAM
1ST FLOOR
WEST END BLOCK
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
BASISTHA ROAD
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
4:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER
NAGAON ELECTRICAL DIVISION-II
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. (APDCL)
NAGAON
Page No.# 2/4
ASSAM.
5:THE SU-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. (APDCL)
RAHA ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
RAHA
NAGAON
ASSAM.
6:THE DEPUTY MANAGER
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL)
RAHA ELECTRIC SUB-DIVISION
RAHA
NAGAON
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
02.11.2022
Heard Shri AM Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S.
Baruah, learned State Counsel for the State of Assam as well as for the Chief Electrical
Inspector whereas the respondent nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 is represented by Shri JK
Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL.
2. The instant petition has been filed for a direction for payment of compensation
to the petitioner on the death of her husband, Lalit Gohain, who had died due to
electrocution on 16.03.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that on the fateful day i.e.
16.03.2016 her husband had passed away out of electrocution in the morning hours
as one of the snapped wires of conductor from the 440 Volt LT. Supply line had fallen
on the other I-Phase Line causing over voltage and the said Phase was used for
Page No.# 3/4
running the motor to supply water for his paddy field. The petitioner claims to have
approached the authorities, even whereafter no compensation has been paid. Shri
Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the
police report and the post mortem report as per which there is no dispute with regard
to cause of death. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the present
notification holding the field, the payable compensation for death by electrocution is
Rs.4(four) lakhs and therefore a direction be issued for such release.
3. Shri Baruah, learned State Counsel has submitted that the claim of the
petitioner that the death was due to electrocution appears to be correct. By referring
to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector in the
proceeding on 13.09.2022, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the Enquiry
Report dated 11.10.2021 has been annexed, as per which it has been stated that
death was due to major electric burn to brain and vital centre inside the brain.
4. Shri Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL submits that though as per
the present notification holding the field dated 07.11.2019, the payable compensation
for loss of human life by electrocution is Rs.4(four) lakhs, in the instant case, the
death was on 16.03.2016, on which date the earlier notification was operating as per
which the compensation was Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand).
The learned Standing Counsel however fairly submits that this Court in a recent
judgment dated 23.11.2021 passed in WP(C)/3354/2016 has laid down that the date
of determination of the compensation which would be relevant and therefore in the
instant case it is the present notification dated 07.11.2019 which would govern the
field.
5. This Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 23.11.2021 has laid down as
follows:
"38. The Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 has prescribed an amount of
Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of human life. While prescribing the amount of Rs.
Page No.# 4/4
4,00,000/- as compensation, it has also been prescribed that in the event a
claim is not settled within a period of 120 [one hundred and twenty] days from
the date of occurrence of the electric accident, the delay in payment of
compensation shall result in an additional interest of 12% per annum on the
amount.
39. The principle that can be culled out from the decisions in Rathi Menon vs.
Union of India, reported in [2001] 3 SCC 714, and N. Parameswararn Pillai and
another vs. Union of India and another, reported in [2002] 4 SCC 306, is that
relevance of date of incident is that the right to claim is acquired on such date
and the compensation is to be assessed as per rules prevailing at the time of
making the determination. The decision in M/s Hind Stone [supra], cited by Mr.
Pathak, is found not relevant as the same was in respect of renewal of a mining
lease."
6. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the
APDCL to release the amount of Rs.4(four) lakhs to the petitioner, who is the widow of
the deceased and such release be done within a period of 2(two) months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
