Manipur High Court
State Of Manipur; & Ors vs Ks Yaomila on 6 June, 2022
KABOR Digitally signed
Item No. 21 & 22
AMBAM byKABORAMBAM
SANDEE SANDEEP SINGH
P SINGH
Date: 2022.06.06
15:37:33 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.A. No. 59 of 2022
State of Manipur; & Ors.
Appellants
Vs.
KS Yaomila
Respondent
With
MC (W.A.) No. 109 of 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
06.06.2022
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):
[1] The State of Manipur and the Manipur State Power Distribution
Company Limited (MSPDCL) are in appeal against the judgment and order dated
06.01.2020 passed by a learned Judge of this Court, disposing of W.P. (C) No.
1038 of 2018 with the direction that the respondents in the writ petition and
more particularly, the MSPDCL, should pay to the writ petitioner an additional
sum of ₹. 1,00,000/- towards ex gratia within a time frame.
[2] Heard Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, appearing
for the appellants; and Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel, appearing for the
respondent/writ petitioner.
[3] W.P. (C) No. 1038 of 2018 was filed by the respondent/writ
petitioner praying for compensation of ₹. 40,20,000/- for the untimely death of
W.A. No. 59 of 2022; & Anr. Page 1
her husband, who died on 26.09.2014 due to electrocution. It is an admitted fact
that a sum of ₹. 1,00,000/- was paid as ex gratia to the respondent/writ
petitioner in April, 2016. However, the she sought more compensation, as
referred to supra, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
[4] Perusal of the judgment and order under appeal manifests that the
learned Judge was of the opinion that, prima facie, no negligence was evident on
the part of the authorities in maintaining electric lines and that there was no clear
proof of any carelessness on their part leading to the death of the husband of the
respondent/writ petitioner. On that ground, the learned judge opined that she
would only be entitled to ex gratia payment and as the revised policy of the
Government, as per its order dated 07.03.2018, was to pay the enhanced sum of
₹. 2,00,000/- as ex gratia, the learned Judge directed payment of the balance
sum of ₹. 1,00,000/- after deducting the amount already paid. The learned Judge
also made it clear that the order would not preclude the widow from approaching
the appropriate forum for seeking more compensation.
[5] Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, would point out
that the revision of ex gratia from ₹. 1,00,000/- to ₹. 2,00,000/- was effected
only in March, 2018, and that the Government Order dated 26.07.2014 held the
field at the time of the death of the respondent/writ petitioner. He would further
point out that the ex gratia amount payable thereunder was only ₹. 1,00,000/-
and as the same was paid long before the revision of ex gratia to ₹. 2,00,000/- in
the March, 2018, he would contend that the respondent/writ petitioner is not
entitled to the revised amount at this stage.
W.A. No. 59 of 2022; & Anr. Page 2
[6] Per contra, Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel, would argue that
the authorities are not being consistent about the application of revised ex gratia
and rely upon case of one P. Dearson, who was paid the enhanced ex gratia for
the death of his son, P. Somirin, in a fatal electrical accident. He produced a copy
of the order dated 14.10.2019 issued by the Managing Director, MSPDCL, in that
regard. Perusal thereof reflects that P. Somirin died on 24.08.2016, but his father,
P. Dearson, was paid ex gratia of ₹. 2,00,000/- on 14.10.2019.
[7] Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, was therefore
asked to get instructions as to how the revised ex gratia amount is being applied
and disbursed. Thereupon, he obtained written instructions from the Managing
Director, MSPDCL, under letter dated 30.05.2022. He placed the same before this
Court. Perusal of the said letter reflects that the Managing Director, MSPDCL, was
of the opinion that though P. Somirin died on 24.08.2016, the process for
payment of ex gratia to his father started only in 2018 and, therefore, the
Government Order dated 07.03.2018 with regard to the enhancement of ex gratia
to ₹. 2,00,000/- was applied to his case. He further stated that as the
respondent/writ petitioner had been paid the sum of ₹. 1,00,000/- under the
earlier policy of July, 2014, she could not seek enhancement under the revised
policy.
[8] This approach on the part of the MSPDCL is patently discriminatory.
The cause of action for payment of ex gratia would arise on the death of the
person and not on the date that the process is initiated. Therefore, in the case of
the respondent/writ petitioner as well as in the case of P. Dearson, the cause of
action arose when their loved ones died in electrical accidents, that is, before the
W.A. No. 59 of 2022; & Anr. Page 3
revision of ex gratia, vide order dated 07.03.2018. As the MSPDCL deemed it
appropriate to extend the revised policy to P. Dearson, though the death of his
son occurred at a time when the earlier ex gratia Order of July, 2014, was holding
the field, it is not open to the MSPDCL to deny the benefit of the revised policy to
the respondent/writ petitioner, who stands identically situated.
The writ appeal is therefore devoid of merits and is accordingly
dismissed.
The appellants shall release the amount due and payable to the
respondent/writ petitioner, in terms of the judgment and order under appeal,
within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We reiterate the
and affirm the liberty granted to the respondent/writ petitioner to seek redressal
of her grievance, if any, with regard to more compensation.
In consequence, MC (W.A.) No. 109 of 2020, filed for stay, is also
dismissed.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
W.A. No. 59 of 2022; & Anr. Page 4
