- (1.) The present petition has been preferred for getting damages from the respondent company because of death of the husband of the Petitioner no. 1 because of electrocution.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mainly on the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that husband of the present Petitioner no. 1 and son of Petitioner no. 2 have expired because of electrocution, which took place on 3rd June, 2001. (ii) Necessary F.I.R. under the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been filed (copy annexed with the memo of the present petition). It is vehemently supported by counsel for the petitioner that they are entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/ -each towards compensation as per the Policy laid down by the respondent authorities. (iii) Counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per the Policy prevalent on 3rd June, 2001 i.e. that date of accident, the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 20,000/ -each as lump sum compensation, which can be adjusted against the damages awarded by any competent Civil Court if any suit for damages is filed. This amount of Rs. 20,000/ -has already been paid to the present petitioners in pursuance of the then prevailing policy, which was applicable on the date of accident i.e. 3rd June, 2001. Counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioners are relying upon the new Policy, which has been brought into effect later on and the latest Policy is not applicable to the old incident. The amount paid towards compensation, is lump sum amount and not towards, full and final settlement. Petitioner can prefer a suit for getting actual damages. As and when, exact amount will be awarded by the competent Civil Court, this amount of Rs. 20,000/ -can be given as set -off. In view of this fact, the petition is fit to be dismissed. (iv) Having heard both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, it appears that the present petitioners should file suit for damages, wherein evidence will be required to be laid down for the proper assessment of the damages. So far as the policy is concerned there is also dispute as to the applicability of the Policy whether as on date of incident older is applicable or new policy will be applicable. As per the old policy, the payment has already been made. As per the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, petitioner has received the said amount, under protest and with objection. In view of these facts, I am not inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Petitioner is at liberty to file suit for damages before the trial Court and lead evidences before the trial Court for correct assessment of actual damages caused to the present petitioners. (v) Looking to the present petition, petitioner states that Rs. 20,000/ -is too meager an amount of compensation. Amount of damages depends upon several factors like pain, shock and suffering, earnings of deceased, loss to surviving family members etc. Evidence will be necessary, to be laid before the trial Court so that correct amount of damages can be awarded. Nothing in detail about these factors have been stated in petition. General are the averments. Therefore, evidence will be necessary before awarding damages. This writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.;