Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hukum Singh vs Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut ... on 20 December, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
W.P. No.23965/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 20th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 23965 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
HUKUM SINGH S/O LATE GAJRAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE MAGROLA TEHSIL
SHUJALPUR DISTT. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER.)
AND
MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO.
1. LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR G.P.H. COMPOUND POLO GROUND
INDORE 452003 (MADHYA PRADESH)
MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO.
2. LTD. THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SHUJALPUR SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO.
3. LTD. THROUGH JUNIOR ENGINEER SHUJALPUR SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.)
This petition coming on for hearing on admission this day, the
court passed the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking
compensation from the respondents on account of death of his father on
- : 2 :-
24.9.2018 due to electrocution.
2. According the petitioner, his father was found dead on his
agricultural field on 24.9.2018. On an information given by the
Community Health Center, Shujalpur, the Police Station Shujalpur
registered 'Merg' No.63/2018 in respect of unnatural death. The post-
mortem was carried which has confirmed the death due to electric
shock. According to the petitioner, the broken wire of LT line was
passing over the agricultural field which came into contact with his
father who was working there. There was negligence on the part of the
respondents, Electricity Company in maintaining the electricity line,
therefore, they are liable to compensate the loss caused to the
petitioner. The police conducted an inquiry after obtaining the
necessary information from the respondent, Electricity Company and
closed the matter that the wire was broken due to heavy rains and storm
but there is no such evidence that on the fateful night such the wire was
broken due to heavy rains and storm. Since the petitioner is an illiterate
person, he was not aware that he is entitled to get the compensation
from the respondents, therefore, he could not take action within time.
Now, the present petition is filed seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.20,00,000/- on account of unnatural death of his father due to
negligence on the part of the respondents.
3. Shri Pankaj Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity
Board V/s. Shail Kumari & others : 2002 ACJ 526 has awarded the
compensation of Rs.4,34,000/- on account of death due to
electrocution. He has also placed reliance over the judgment of apex
Court in the case of Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita V/s. State of
- : 3 :-
Orissa : (1993) 2 SCC 76. Reliance has also been placed over the
judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Singh Pawar V/s.
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board : 2005 ACJ 894 in which
compensation has been awarded in a writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Court has calculated the
compensation by applying the Schedule provided in the Motor Vehicle
Act. He, therefore, prays for issuance of notice to the respondents.
4. It is correct that this Court can award the compensation in a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but for which there has
to be an admitted fact between the parties. In the present case,
according to the respondents, the accident took place as the electricity
wire was broken due to heavy rains and storm. There was no
negligence or non-maintenance on the electricity line and on the basis
of the said defence the criminal case had already been closed way back
in the year 2018. So far as calculation of compensation is concerned,
that can only be decided by way of evidence. So far as judgment
passed by the apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board V/s.
Shail Kumari (supra) is concerned, in the said case the matter travelled
up to the Supreme Court from the judgment and decree passed by the
Civil Court in a civil suit filed for compensation.
4.1 Similar issue came up before the apex Court in the case of
Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. V/s. Sukamani Das
(Smt.) and another : (1999) 7 SCC 298 wherein the apex Court has
held that the High Court has committed an error in entertaining the writ
petition for grant of compensation to dependent of the victim who died
due to electrocution. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in the
case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board V/s. Sumathi & others : (2000)
- : 4 :-
4 SCC 543 and the writ petition has been held as not maintainable.
Relevant paragraph of the said judgment are reproduced below :
"It was thus submitted that respondents' right to life under Article 21
of the Constitution had been violated because of the negligence
of the public authorities and that it was a well settled legal
proposition that High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution had the power to award compensation in case of
violation of fundamental rights by State's instrumentality or
servants and the award of compensation in proceedings for
enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 226 and 32
of the Constitution is a remedy available in Public Law. Finally
it was submitted that the Public Law proceedings serve a
different purpose than the Private Law proceedings. The relief
of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in
proceedings under Article 226 by the High Court for
infringement the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution is a remedy available in Public Law.
Therefore, when the Court moulds the relief by granting
compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution, it does so
under the Public Law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and
fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has
failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the
citizens. It was, therefore, submitted by the respondents that
the judgment of the High Court was right in law as
compensation could be awarded under Article 226 for the
infringement of fundamental rights of the citizens."
In the case of S.P.S. Rathore V/s. State of Haryana & others : (2005)
10 SCC 1, the apex Court has held in Paragraphs 10, 12 and 19 as
under :
"10. No doubt, the Courts while exercising jurisdiction
under Articles 32 and 226 can award compensation for the
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution
but such a power should not be lightly exercised. In Rudul Sah
v. State of Bihar & Anr. [(1983) 4 SCC 141], where
compensation was awarded, this Court was faced with a
situation where the petitioner who was acquitted by the Court
of Session was released from jail more than 14 years after he
was acquitted. The petitioner approached the Court asking for
his release on the ground that his detention in the jail was
- : 5 :-
unlawful and claimed compensation for the illegal
incarceration. The petitioner was released from jail and as
regards the compensation for illegal detention the Court held
that though Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the
enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced
efficaciously through the ordinary processes of Courts,
however, in order to rectify the grave injustice perpetrated upon
the petitioner by illegally detaining him in jail for 14 years after
his acquittal, which violated his fundamental right to life and
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, can
pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in
the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation
of a fundamental right. This principle has been consistently
followed in the subsequent line of cases. Sebastian M. Hongray
v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 82; Bhim Singh, MLA v. State
of JK & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 677; Peoples' Union For
Democratic Rights & Anr. v. Police Commissioner, Delhi
Police Headquarters & Anr. (1989) 4 SCC 730; State of
Maharashtra & Ors. v. Ravikant S. Patil (1991) 2 SCC 373;
Peoples' Union For Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar & Ors.
(1987) 1 SCC 265; Saheli, A Women's Recources Centre &
Ors. v. Commissioner of Delhi Police Headquarters & Ors.
(1990) 1 SCC 422; Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. &
Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 565; P. Rathinam v. Union of India & Ors.
1989 Supp (2) SCC 716; In re Death of Sawinder Singh Grover
1995 Supp (4) SCC 450; Inder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
(1995) 3 SCC 702; D. K. Basu v. State of W. B. (1997) 1 SCC
416; Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. Chandrima Das
(Mrs.) & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 465).
12. Compensation can be awarded for violation of
fundamental rights in public law domain, but the facts of the
case in hand do not justify the directions given in the impugned
judgment for conducting of an enquiry by the District Judge so
as to determine the compensation to be awarded to respondent
No.5.
19. The sparing exercise of power under Article 32 or
Article 226 226 of Constitution of India for issue of directions
to conduct enquiry to determine compensation in glaring and
clear cases of rape by police officials, custody death, illegal
detention of poor and helpless cannot be resorted to in the case
of present nature."
- : 6 :-
5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is not maintainable
especially when various disputed questions of facts are involved in
order to examine the negligence as well as assess of compensation.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is dismissed in
limine. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the remedy available
under the law.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/-
Date: 2023.12.22 16:33:11 +05'30'
