J.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) ON July 8, 1998 Ram Chander, a mason was working at a house in village Dhamtan. An electric cable which was passing over the house fell on him. He was electrocuted and died. A report was lodged. Postmortem was performed. The widow, two minor children and the aged parents served a notice on the respondent - Electricity Board for the payment of compensation. Having failed to get any relief they have approached this Court through this writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioners pray that the compensation of Rs. 5 lacs be awarded. While filing the writ petition the petitioners have placed reliance on the investigation report into the accident submitted by the Assistant Engineer to the Chief Electrical Inspector. This report is on record as Annexure P5 with the writ petition. It appears that after getting notice of the writ petition, the Board filed an appeal before the Secretary to Government Haryana, Power Department. After consideration of the matter the appeal was accepted. The finding of the Chief Electrical Inspector was set aside. Thereafter, the order dated August 31, 2000 was produced as Annexure R2 with Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 23051 of 2000.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a perusal of the photographs, the report of the police, the post -mortem report and the report of investigation clearly show that Ram Chander had died on account of electrocution. He further submits that the height of the cable even from the roof top was such that not even a tall person could have touched it. It is only on account of the snapping of the cable that the electrocution had occurred. On the other hand, Mr. Chahar appearing for the respondent has submitted that the deceased was 5'9" tall. He had touched the High Tension line and had got electrocuted. He has further submitted that there is a dispute on facts. Thus, the petitioners should be relegated to their remedy before the Civil Court. On these premises, learned counsel has submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed. A perusal of the investigation report submitted by the Chief Electrical Inspector shows that the following finding had been recorded: "Though the accident had occurred per chance but had the 11 KV conductor of adequate strength been provided the accident could have been averted." It was farther found that Rule 29 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 had been in fringed and that the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited was responsible. This finding clearly shows that the cable was not of adequate strength. Thus, the respondent was at fault. Mr. Chahar submits that the report submitted by the Chief Electrical Inspector has been set aside on the appeal filed by the Nigam.;