Orissa High Court
Narendra Patra & Anr vs The Chief Executive Officer on 14 December, 2022
ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
W.P.(C) NO.881 OF 2009
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India.
Narendra Patra & anr. : Petitioners
-Versus-
The Chief Executive Officer,
Tata Power Northern Odisha Distribution Ltd.,
Balasore & ors.
: Opposite Parties
For Petitioners : Mr.R.K.Samal, Adv.
For O.Ps. : Mr.S.K.Paradhan, Adv.
JUDGMENT
CORAM :
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 14.12.2022
1. This Court observes, it is a case establishing there is prima facie
satisfaction of death of the deceased here on electrocution. The death
involves here on 12.6.2004 involving a loss of eight years child to the
parents involve here, even assuming the Parties should have availed
appropriate court remedy for ascertaining the amount of compensation in
establishment of responsibility of Electric Company, this Court finds, this
// 2 //
Writ Petition was filed here in 2009 and being entertained is kept here
pending for thirteen years. In the circumstance and for long pendency of
the case here and further in absence of any concrete material at least
involving any fact finding enquiry to establish the case otherwise by the
NESCO at relevant time, this Court finds no purpose will be resolved by
relegating the Parties to Civil Forums at this stage. This Court
accordingly proceeds to take a decision here itself.
2. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties herein, the
objection raised by the contesting O.Ps. in disputing the involvement of
theirs in the death of Baikuntha Patra finding trace through the F.I.R. and
P.M. Report reason of death becoming by way of electrocution.
Considering similar aspect, this Court in disposal of W.P.(C) No.7704 of
2007 on 1.11.2022 taking aid of the decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court
in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & ors. vrs.
Sukamani Das & anr. : AIR 1999 SC 3412 and Executive Engineer,
Central Electricity Supply Utility Ltd., Cuttack Electrical Division,
Jobra, Cuttack vrs. Hema Sethy : 2011 (II) OLR-708 found, in the
peculiar situation, the Hon'ble apex Court in AIR 2001 SC 485 in
Paragraph-12 held as follows :-
"12. Even if there is no negligence on the part of
the driver or owner of the motor vehicle, but accident
happens while the vehicle was in use, should not the owner
be made liable for damages to the person who suffered on
// 3 //
account of such accident? This question depends upon how
far the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1861-73 All ER
(Reprint)1) (supra) can apply in motor accident cases. The
said Rule is summarized by Blackburn J. thus: The true rule
of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on
his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do
mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does
not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage
which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse
himself by showing that the escape was owing to the
plaintiff's default, or, perhaps, or the act of God; but, as
nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire
what excuse would be sufficient."
This decision also supports the case of the Petitioner here.
This Court in Bhagaban Rout (supra) in Paragraphs-7 & 8
held as follows :-
"7. At this stage, taking into consideration the
decision taken support by the opponent, this Court finds, the
claim of the Petitioner though based on a reporting in the
inquest report as well as F.I.R. and further final form
observations involving the F.I.R. at the instance of the parties
in loss but however there is no material establishing the case
contrary to the existence in all these records. Further in spite
of involvement of such serious issue, department failed in
undertaking the minimum an enquiry at least coming to a
finding by its own people that there is in fact, an attempt for
stealing energy by cutting AB cable.
8. It is in the above background, this Court finds,
there is no disputed fact involved herein. In the circumstance,
this Court finds, the Petitioners for the undisputed loss of
their son at the age of twenty four years observes, there is
great loss to the parents not only on account of death of their
son but there is also loss of mental agony as well as love and
affection and Petitioners deserved appropriate
compensation."
// 4 //
3. Considering the age of the Petitioner at the time of death
hardly eight years, the suffering of the parents in losing their child of
eight years old, keeping in view the relief sought for in the Writ
Petition and on applying the principles enumerated herein above,
this Court directs, a consolidated amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees
two lakh) be paid to Petitioner No.2 herein by O.P.1 at least within a
period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order.
This Court here considering the request of the learned counsel for
the TPNODL for granting at least eight weeks' time to clear the
entitlements, this Court considering it to be a reasonable asking,
however, grants six weeks' time for payment of the aforesaid
amount. This Court observes, If O.P.1 fails to have over the amount
within six weeks, the Petitioners will be entitled to interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of Writ Petition at least.
4. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 14th December, 2022/M.K.Rout, A.R.-cum-Sr.Secy.
