[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dusmanta Samal vs State Of Orissa And Others ..... ... on 7 January, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14548 of 2016
Dusmanta Samal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. P.R. Singh
-versus-
State of Orissa and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. Chandra Madhab Singh,
Additional Standing Counsel
Mr. Bibudhendra Dash,
Advocate for the Opp. Party No.3-
TPCODL
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.01.2026
Order No.
14. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.3-TPCODL, Bhubaneswar,
Odisha.
3. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the
Opposite Party No.3 with a prayer for modification of judgment
dated 16.04.2025 delivered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14548 of
2016.
4. Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party
No.3- Electricity Distribution Company, at the outset, contended
that by virtue of the judgment dated 16.04.2025, this Court, while
allowing the writ application filed by the Petitioner, has been
pleased to grant interim compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-.
He further contended that in the judgment dated 16.04.2025 while
directing to pay interim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees
Four Lakhs) at paragraph No.25 of the judgment, this Court has
referred to OERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical
Accidents) Regulations, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as
"Regulations, 2020"). Mr. Dash further contended that the aforesaid
Regulations, 2020 came into force w.e.f. 30.05.2020. Since the
mishap in the present case took place in the year 2014, the
provisions of the Regulations, 2020 could not be made applicable to
the case of the Petitioner. On such grounds, learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No.3 submitted that paragraph-25 of the impugned
judgment requires modification keeping in view the aforesaid facts.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand,
contended that although the impugned judgment was delivered on
16.04.2025, the Opp. Party No.3-Distribution Company has not paid
the interim compensation as of now. He further contended that in the
meantime, the Opp. Party No.3 Distribution Company has already
filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, which
has been registered as W.A. No.1675 of 2025. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner objected to the prayer for
modification of the judgment made by the Opposite Party No.3 in
the present Interlocutory Application.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for both the sides and on close scrutiny of the
judgment dated 16.04.2025, this Court is of the prima facie view
that after taking into consideration the submissions and pleadings
from both sides, the judgment was finally delivered. With regard to
the grounds taken by Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the
Opp. Party No.3-Distribution Company that the interim
compensation has been awarded on the basis of the provisions
contained in the Regulations, 2020 and accordingly a prayer was
made for modification of the direction given by this Court in
paragraph-25 of the judgment, this Court is of the view that the
grant of interim compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees
Four Lakhs) was on the basis of the legal as well as the factual
position that emerged from the factual background of the writ
application. This Court, after a detailed analysis of the factual and
the legal aspects of the matter, had come to a conclusion that the
Petitioner is entitled to compensation for the death of the deceased
due to electrocution.
7. It is true that the Regulations, 2020 came into force w.e.f.
30.05.2020 and such fact has been clearly mentioned in paragraph-
25 of the judgment, this Court was aware of the applicability of the
Regulations, 2020. The reference by this Court to the Regulations,
2020 is in the context of deciding the quantum of compensation that
is payable to the family members of the deceased. It is only in the
aforesaid limited context that the Regulations, 2020 was referred to
by this Court. It is further made clear that the compensation amount
has not been granted under the Regulations, 2020, which has,
admittedly, come into force w.e.f. 30.05.2020 and, as such, is not
applicable to the case of the present Petitioner. Moreover, this Court
also considered the judgment of this Court in T. Bimala Vs. Cuttack
Municipal Corporation, Cuttack and others (W.A. No.106 of 2012
decided on 15.12.2014), which was filed and referred to by Mr.
Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.3-
Distribution Company. In the aforesaid case, a Division Bench of
this Court has underscored the importance of grant of compensation
to the victims and by applying the doctrine of strict liability and res
ipsa loquitur, had granted interim compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with further liberty to the
Petitioner in that writ petition to approach the common law forum to
work out the final remedies as is admissible in law.
8. In the present case, this Court, after a detailed discussion of
the legal provisions and several judgments of this Court as well as
Hon'ble Apex Court, has come to a conclusion that the Opp. Party
No.3-Distribution Company is squarely responsible for the mishap
and, as such, they were directed to pay the compensation amount.
Moreover, the grant of interim compensation is not regulated by any
statutory provision. Thus, this Court is at liberty to grant interim
compensation keeping in view the magnitude and severity of the
loss sustained by the family of the deceased.
9. After a detailed analysis of the factual background of the
present case, this Court has come to a conclusion that the Petitioner
is entitled to an interim compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs). It is also apt to mention that at the time of
writing the judgment, this Court was conscious of the fact that the
Regulations, 2020 was not applicable to the facts of the Petitioner's
case and the same was only mentioned as a reference.
10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, paragraph-25 of the
judgment dated 16.04.2025 is clarified to the extent that the mention
of Regulations, 2020 in paragraph-25 is to be read and understood in
the context that the same has been referred only to arrive at a just
conclusion of the case and no direction has been given by this Court
under the aforesaid Regulations, 2020.
11. With the aforesaid clarification, the I.A. stands dispose of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis/Rajesh
