SMT SOMA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought directions against the respondents, State of Meghalaya and Meghalaya Energy Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), for payment of monetary compensation to her because of the demise of her daughter due to electrocution. Put in brief, the case of the petitioner is that on 19.02.2012 at around 3.30 p.m., her daughter Ms. Sheetal Joshi, who was 23 years of age and was a student of first year B.A. at Umshyrpi College, Shillong, went to the terrace of the residential building situated at Police Reserve Quarter, Shillong to collect the dried clothes accompanied by one Mrs. Anita Sangma; and both of them got electrocuted on coming in contact with the 11 KV electricity supply line passing dangerously close to the building. The petitioner has averred that the said Mrs. Anita Sangma succumbed to the injuries while her daughter suffered 80% burn injuries wherefor she was hospitalized and during the course of treatment, both her upper limbs had to be amputated. The petitioner has further averred that on 28.03.2012, her husband Shri Chhabilal Joshi filed an application before the respondent No. 2, the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the Corporation for payment of adequate compensation and for appointment of the victim on any suitable post, but the request so made evoked no response. The petitioner has pointed out that unfortunately, her daughter expired on 09.07.2012 due to the injuries sustained in electrocution.

(2.) The petitioner has also placed on record the copies of the medical bills and has alleged that an amount of Rs. 8,83,163 (Rupees eight lakhs eighty three thousand one hundred and sixty three) was spent on the treatment of her daughter apart from the other expenditure on diet and transportation etc. The petitioner has averred that she lost her only daughter, who had a very bright future, only due to the negligence and improper management of the respondents; but the respondents have failed to award her suitable compensation. The petitioner has stated the grievance that after the demise of her daughter, another representation was made to the respondent No. 2 but to no avail; and then, it was wrongly sought to be suggested that the petitioner did not lodge any formal complaint with the Corporation although such complaints had indeed been made on 28.03.2012 and 07.11.2012.

(3.) Thus, while maintaining that her daughter met with the accident and succumbed to the injuries caused by the 11 KV electricity supply line, which had been installed negligently near the residential building and the wires were hanging so close to the building as to be within the normal reach of an average human being, the petitioner has submitted that a high degree of care was expected of the respondents so as to avoid any such incidence; and having failed to do so, they are liable to pay compensation.