Shri Haripada Debnath And Another vs The State Of Tripura And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1878 Tri

Tripura High Court

Shri Haripada Debnath And Another vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 25 March, 2026

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                  Page 1 of 2




                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               AGARTALA

                            RFA No.15 of 2024

Shri Haripada Debnath and another
                                                             ......Appellant(s);
                                  VERSUS
The State of Tripura and others
                                                          ......Respondent(s);
For Appellant(s)                : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
                                  Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)               : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.

               HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
                               _O_R_D_E_R_

25/03/2026

          When the case is called, both sides are present.


          It is a case of the appellant that the Trial Court has rejected the

claim of the appellant without appreciating the fact that the claimant is

entitled to compensation for the death caused to his son who got in contact

with the live electric wire in the office premises of the Fishery Department.

As such, he was entitled for compensation but the Trial Court declined to

award such compensation which is explained in paragraph no.-45 of the

judgment stating that unauthorizedly, the deceased victim has entered into

the premises and caught live wire and such unauthorized entry would not

entitle him to claim any compensation. Further, he claims that compensation

needs to be paid even if it is not a playground and even if the deceased has

trespassed into the government property on a Sunday when it is closed, the

Trial Court cannot deprive him of compensation. He, therefore, prays that

the appellant is entitled for compensation.
                                                                Page 2 of 2




                   Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, in this regard, prays for

an accommodation to place some judgments in his favour.


                   Mr. Dipankar Sarma, learned Additional Government Advocate,

appearing for the respondents-State submits before this Court that the

deceased being a trespasser entered into the office premises of Fishery

Department on 09.05.2021 i.e. a government holiday (Sunday) and for

whatever the reason, he came into contact with the electric wire either by

playing games or otherwise. For this, the claimant is not entitled for any

compensation and therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any

compensation to the claimant and he prayed for dismissal of the instant

appeal by confirming the judgment of the learned trial Court.


                   However, considering the request of Mr. Barman, learned senior

counsel that he would place some judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

on the next date, an adjournment is granted.


                   List this matter on 31.03.2026.


S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J.                                                     DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

Munna MUNNA SAHA Date: 2026.03.25 18:50:10 +05'30'