- (1.)THROUGH the currency of this petition, parents of the deceased Param Jit Singh has sought a direction to the respondents for payment of compensation Rs. 5/ -lacs on account of death of their son who got electrocuted because of negligence of the electricity department, by issuance a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of J&K. The case of the petitioners as projected in the writ petition is that their son aged 20 years was electrocuted on 21st of June, 1999 at 8.30 PM at Indra Nagar, Miran Sahib. Son of the petitioners had got electrocuted because of over hanging high tension wire by respondents 3 to 6 who did not care to check, which resulted in, the live high tension wire hanging from the pole touching the ground and thereby exposing human life. It is further stated that the death of Param Jit Singh has been caused by negligence of the respondents particularly respondents 3 to 6 on 21st June, 1999 on spot after electrocution by live high tension wire. As the petitioner had died due to negligence of the respondents, an FIR No. 60/99 was registered with police station Bishnah. The police got autopsy conducted on dead body of the deceased and investigation ensued. On the conclusion of the investigation, challan came to be produced in the court of law for offence u/s 304 -A RPC against the employees of electricity department. It is further stated that the concluding challan produced in the court against the employees of the electricity department clearly reveals that the death of deceased has occurred due to negligence of the accused who happen to be employees of the electricity department. The postmortem report on the file further shows that cause of death was shock as a result of electric burns. The concluding challan produced under section 171 Cr.P.C in the court in its pendente lite report further reveals that the accident resulting in death of the deceased could have been avoided if the timely action by the respondents to restore the line in earlier position had been taken. Their failure to do so obviously amounts negligence and dereliction of duties. The petitioners further stated that they had not only lost a son but have lost the very hope of dependency on a son during the old age. They have lost both support and dependency in their hayed days, and thus, claim aforesaid compensation from the respondents in respect of death of their son due to their negligence.
(2.)THE claim of the petitioners has been contested by the respondents on a blend of pleas both preliminary and on merits. It is submitted that claim of compensation which involves disputed questions of fact can be resolved only by civil court and the writ jurisdiction under article 226 cannot be invoked for this purpose. It is further stated that the deceased had not died due to negligence of the respondents but on account of his own negligence by touching the high tension wire. It was further admitted, that FIR was registered against respondents 3 to 6 for causing death of the deceased by negligence. The high tension wire was duly maintained by the respondents and there was no indication in regarding to the snapping of the high tension line.
(3.)HEARD learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record meticulously. The first argument in the chain advanced by Ms. S. Hakim, Dy. AG is that the remedy available to the petitioners for seeking damages is from the Civil Courts under the ordinary law, and not to seek remedy under Constitutional provisions. The debate addressed by learned counsel though manifestly appears to be attractive but cannot be accepted on multiple grounds.
Undoubtedly there is an alternate remedy available to the victims for seeking damages from the civil courts under the ordinary law, but that remedy is not so efficacious as it is available under the Constitutional provisions. The court has to exercise its writ jurisdiction very sparingly in a restricted manner depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.