IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24561 of 2002 Between: Smt. Kokkiligadda Hesteramma, W/o Sahadevudu, R/o Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Managing Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 Superintending Engineer, Electricity, A.P.Transco, Guntur. 4 The District Collector, Guntur Guntur District. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ponnuru Mandal, Guntur District. ..... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an Writ of order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the in action of the respondents is not considering the case of mine for payment of compensation and ex gratia as illegal, arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and violative of Art.14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to pay of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of compensation to the petitioner for the loss of her son and the buffalo. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHALLA.SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.AJAY KUMAR (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.24561 of 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the request of the petitioner for payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 2) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred as follows: The son of the petitioner, by name Babu Prasad, aged about 17 years, died on 04.08.1999 due to electric shock. On 04.08.1999 in the early hours at about 4 a.m. their buffalo ran away to the fields from the house. The deceased went to the field, which is adjacent to their house to fetch the buffalo and when he went to the field there was an electric wire, fell on the ground and the deceased came into contact with the said wire and died on the spot due to electrocution. The buffalo of the petitioner also died due to electrocution. Later, the petitioner informed to the police and the police registered a crime and visited the scene of offence and prepared a panchanama. The respondents promised to pay some amount to her towards compensation, but they did not pay any amount. Aggrieved by the same, she filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and exgratia of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3) The respondents filed counter affidavit contending that they are not liable to pay compensation on account of the death of the deceased. Some times, conductors get snapped due to heavy gale and rain and individuals have to pay constant attention while moving around. The deceased negligently and without paying any attention contacted the snapped conductor and died due to electric shock, despite constant supervision of electrical equipment by the staff. The petitioner made a representation to the fifth respondent for payment of the compensation and the same is pending with him. There is no negligence on the part of the respondents. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation or exgratia. The respondents are also denying the manner of accident and unless the petitioner is adducing convincing and cogent oral and documentary evidence regarding the manner of accident, she is not entitled for any compensation. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 4) The death of the deceased due to electric shock is not disputed by the respondents, which is supported by the inquest report and the post-mortem report. It is the specific version of the petitioner that the deceased went to the field, which is adjacent to their house, in the early hours of the date of incident to bring back the buffalo and when he was proceeding in the field, he came into contact with the electric wire lying on the ground after snapping. 5) Though the death of the deceased is not disputed on account of electric shock, the respondents contended that there was no negligence on their part, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 6) The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that when there is a disputed question of fact, the Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been entertained. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions: i) In Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., and others v. Sukamani Das and another[1] the Supreme Court considered the aspect of granting compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case covered by the above decision, a widow filed writ petition against the Grid Corporation claiming compensation on the ground that while walking along the road, the deceased had came into contact with a live wire which had been lying on the road after getting snapped from the overhead electric line because of negligence of the Grid Corporation and its employees. The Grid Corporation took a defence that the wire got snapped because of thunderbolt and lightning and immediately after knowing about it, power was disconnected. The Supreme Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case held as follows: “The High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken places because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellant Grid Corporation. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to the Grid Corporation had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with the same and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the Grid Corporation under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the Grid Corporation in each of these cases it deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond its control or unauthorized intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy.” ii) In S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & others v. Timudu Oram[2] the Supreme Court while considering a case relying to the death of a person due to electric shock held as follows: “In Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and others (supra) with which case these appeals were listed for hearing but could not be heard for want of service this Court took the view that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was held that actions in tort and negligence were required to eb established initially by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire fo electric transmission line belonging to the appellant had snapped and the deceased had come into contact with it and died by itself was not sufficient for awarding compensation. The Court was required to examine as to whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence on the part of the appellants, as a result of which the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the defence raised and the denial by the appellants in each of the case, the appellants deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission line and yet the wires had snapped because of the circumstances beyond their control or unauthorized intervention of third parties. Such disputed questions of fact could not be decided in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the appellants had disputed the negligence attributed to it and no finding has been recorded by the High Court that the GRIDCO was in any way negligent in the performance of its duty. The High Court has also erred in awarding compensation in Civil Appeal No……………. of 2005 [@ SLP (C) No.9788 of 1998]. The subsequent suit or writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the dismissal of the suit. The writ petition was filed after a lapse of 10 years. No reasons have been given for such an inordinate delay. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition after a lapse of 10 years. In such a case, awarding of compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be justified. As the High Court had exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution without properly appreciating the nature of its jurisdiction, the impugned judgments deserve to be set aside. However, in view of the long lapse of time the appellants will not recover the amounts already paid to the respondents.” iii) In M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and others[3] the Supreme Court held that the Electricity Board was held liable to pay damages. In the case covered by the above decision, a live wire was getting snapped and falling on the public road which was inundated with rainwater. The deceased was proceeding on a cycle at night not noticing the wire, passing over the same and got electrocuted. In such circumstances, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness, the State Electricity Board was held liable to pay damages. iv) The decision in ShailKumari’s case (supra) have been distinguished by the Supreme Court in Timudu Oram’s case (supra) by observing that the facts of the aforesaid case would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. v) I n Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Ramesh Nath and others[4] the Supreme Court held that the Electricity Board was held liable to pay the compensation since the Electricity Board did not controvert the facts alleged by the writ petitioner and the disputed questions of facts were not involved in the case covered by the above decision. Therefore, the findings recorded by the High Court were upheld by the Supreme Court. 7) In the present case, the respondents denied that there was no negligence on their part and contended that on account of the factors beyond their control, the accident occurred. 8) In Timudu Oram’ case (2 Supra), the Supreme Court, after following the Judgment in Sukamani Das’s case (1 Supra), held that in view of the defence raised by the appellants, they deserve an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond its control or unauthorized intervention of third parties. Such disputed questions of fact could not be decided in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9) In the light of the above observations of the Supreme Court, the writ petition cannot be maintained. But the fact remains that the deceased lost his life due to electric shock. The respondents were paying exgratia to some persons who died of electric shock. But the deceased was not paid any exgratia, therefore, I am inclined to direct the respondents to pay an exgratia of Rs.50,000/- irrespective of the fact whether there is negligence on their part in maintaining the electric lines. 10) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, by holding that when there is a disputed question of fact, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained. However, the petitioner is granted an exgratia of Rs.50,000/- and the respondents shall pay the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate her rights in the appropriate forum to decide the disputed questions of fact including claim of compensation, if the law permits such reliefs. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 04-04-2008 Isn/Ycr ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Managing Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 Superintending Engineer, Electricity, A.P.Transco, Guntur. 4 The District Collector, Guntur Guntur District. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ponnuru Mandal, Guntur District. 6. 2 CCs to S.C. for AP TRANSCO 7. 2 CD copies [1] (1999) 7 SCC 298 [2] 2005 (5) Scale 686 [3] 2002 (2) SCC 162 [4] 2004 (5) SCC 793