D.P. Wadhwa, J. - (1.) WE grant leave to appeal.
(2.) THE questions, which arise for consideration in this batch of eight appeals, are: (1) can the High Court under Article of the Constitution award compensation for the death caused due to electrocution on account of improper maintenance of electric wires of equipment by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the appellant; and (2) whether the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article of the Constitution appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1998 (new Act) to decide the quantum of compensation and then make the award of the arbitrator Rule of the Court. First question has recently been dealt with by judgment of this Court in Chairman Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Ors. v. : (1999)7SCC298 . In that case the deceased met his death due to electrocution. It was alleged that while the deceased was proceeding from his village to another place he decided to return back as dark clouds gathered in the sky arid there were thunderbolts also. While he was returning it started raining and while walking on the road he came in contact with an electric wire which was lying across the road after getting snapped from the overhead electric line. It was thus alleged that the electric wire had snapped because of the negligence of the appellant and its officers in not properly maintaining the electricity transmission line. Thus claim for damages was laid. Appellant Grid Corporation of Orissa submitted that there was no negligence and it was because of the thunderbolt and the lightening that one of the conductors of the 12 W LT line had snapped even though proper guarding was provided and further that as soon as information regarding the snapping of line was received from the line helper of the village concerned the power was disconnected. It was also contended that the deceased did not die as a result of coming into contact with the live electric wire but he met his death due to lightening. The appellant Grid Corporation objected to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article of the Constitution and said that proper remedy was a civil suit as disputed question of fact arose and evidence had to be lead by both the parties. High Court, however, decided the matter on merit and awarded compensation of rupees one lakh. On appeal this Court said that High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition as it was not a fit case for exercising power under Article of the Constitution. It was observed that High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the death had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wire of the electric transmission line of the appellants which "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants". This Court said that High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimant. This Court further said that it was a settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts were involved a petition under Article of the Constitution was not a proper remedy. Reference was made to a decision of this Court in Shakuntala Devi v. : (1994)2SCC369 , wherein this Court specifically exercised jurisdiction under Article of the Constitution and it was said that the judgment was rendered on the facts of that case and would not be treated as a precedent in any other matter.
(3.) SHAKUNTALA Devi case was a petition under Article of the Constitution where Shakuntala Devi had claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of death of her husband, who got electrocuted by a live wire of electricity of the respondent. A live main electricity cable/wire which was resting on an electricity pole had got snapped and was lying in the rainy and water lodged village. Various complaints were made by the residents of the village to the officers of the respondent, which was statutorily bound to maintain electrical installation lines in proper conditions. Deceased was not aware of the electricity leakage and when he came in contact with the live cable he got electrocuted on the spot and died instantaneously. According to Shakuntala Devi this was on account of criminal negligence on the part of the respondent. The Court observed that as this disaster had left the petitioner and her young children destitute, the present petition was moved under Article of the Constitution presumably relying upon petitioner's fundamental rights under Article of the Constitution which had got adversely affected on account of the negligent act of the officials of respondent. In these circumstances this Court said that it was a fit case to exercise its jurisdiction under Article of the Constitution and granted relief to Shakuntala Devi. This Court, however, did not go into the question of infringement of the rights of Shakuntala Devi guaranteed under Article of the Constitution.;