Minati Panigrahy vs Central Electricity Supply
2023 Latest Caselaw 13508 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.A. No. 111 of 2007

Minati Panigrahy                     .....                                    Appellant
                                                         Mr. U.K. Mishra, Advocate
                                     Vs.
Central Electricity Supply           .....                                Respondents
Company of Orissa Ltd., and
others
                                       Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate (Respondent No.2)
                              Mr. Bibudhendra Dash, Advocate (Respondents 3 to 6)
            CORAM:
               ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
               MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                            ORDER

01.11.2023

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

15.

2. Heard Mr. U.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 to 6.

3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 13.11.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 12515 of 2003 by which the learned Single Judge by observing that since the allegation involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction, gave liberty to the appellant to approach the civil Court to work out her remedy in consonance with law.

4. Mr. U.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that while the husband of the appellant was going to a temple, on his way all of a sudden he came in contact with a live electric wire, as a result of which, he received heavy shock and succumbed to death. According to him, due to the negligence on the

part of the respondents the death was caused to the husband of the appellant, the appellant is entitled for compensation. To substantiate her claim, he relied upon the FIR, the death certificate of her husband, the post-mortem report etc. He further contended that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Nirmala Nayak and others v. Chairman-cum-MD, GRIDCO and another, 2005 (II) OLR 389.

5. Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 to 6 vehemently contended that the death due to electrocution was not in dispute, but fact remains nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the fact that the death was caused due to the negligence on the part of the respondents. Therefore, learned Single Judge has not committed any error apparent on the face of it so as to call for interference by this Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record it appears that while the husband of the appellant was going to a temple, on his way all of a sudden he came in contact with a live electric wire, as a result of which he received heavy shock and succumbed to death. The claim of the appellant is that her husband was a renowned school teacher and because of his merit he had been given promotion on out of turn basis. His monthly salary was Rs.2,941.00 and he had also other sources of income. Due to his death, apart from mental agony the appellant has sustained great financial loss. As her husband died due to negligence on the part of the respondents, the respondents are liable to pay compensation. But fact remains the appellant has not established her case before this Court that the death of her husband was occurred due to negligence on the part of the respondents save and except showing the death certificate and other certificate which shows that the death was caused due to electrocution. The appellant may not be entitled to get compensation unless otherwise

she proves that there is negligence on the part of the authority concerned. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has come to a conclusion that the allegation that the appellant's husband died due to negligence of the opposite parties was strongly denied and as such the allegation also involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition granting liberty to the appellant to approach the civil court to work out her remedy in consonance with law.

7. In view of such position, this Court does not find any error apparent on the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 12515 of 2003 so as to call for interference. Rather this writ appeal stands disposed of permitting the appellant to pursue her remedy before the appropriate civil court to establish the negligence of the part of authority, so that the authority shall pay compensation to the appellant which is admissible to her, in accordance with law.

                                                                               (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                                             ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE


                                                                                   (M.S. RAMAN)
                Arun                                                                 JUDGE



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA

Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-Nov-2023 10:55:24