SUKKAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-296
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 04,2012

Sukkar And Another Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Haryana And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioners pray for grant of compensation on account of loss of their son aged 8 years due to electrocution on 8.10.2009. The deceased who was earning his livelihood by picking up waste material and thereafter selling the same and also doing menial labour work, died when he came into touch with the barbed wire which was touching the hanging electric wire from the pole.
(2.) The respondents have denied their liability and have stated that no notice was served upon them regarding the accident in terms of Section 161 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and Rule 44-A of the Electricity Rules, 1956. However, they have admitted that the earth wire of the 11 KV Mithapur Feeder had broken and fallen down on the barbed wire and was in contact with it and as the victim tried to pass over the barbed wire, he came into contact with the electric current. It has been admitted that the accident had occurred due to the poor maintenance of 11 KV Line and in the investigation by the office of the Chief Electrical Inspector, the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. was held responsible for infringement of Rule 29 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which obligates the Nigam to adhere to the guidelines providing for maintenance. In view of the aforesaid, when the factum of negligence of maintenance of 11 KV Feeder wire has been more or less admitted by the respondents, I am of the opinion that the principle of res ipso locutor is attracted to the facts of the case, as it is evident that the element of negligence is directly attributable to the respondents.
(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphar Tragedy and others,2012 3 RAJ 92 has held that the Constitutional Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is certainly empowered to invoke its jurisdiction to answer the claim of compensation and it is not necessary to force the litigant into the throes of long litigation before the civil courts and also to evolve its own methodology to assess compensation.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.