1 W.P. 1840/98 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1840 OF 1998 Smt. Ushabai W/o Ashok Medhe Age : 32 Years, Occ. Household, R/o : Charwad, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2. Executive Engineer Office of the Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B., U.C.R. Division, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. .... RESPONDENTS ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ Mr. S.G.Sangale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.N.Kendre, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. Sanjay Mundhe, Advocate for respondent no. 2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 W.P. 1840/98 - ( J ) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 22/07/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. The petitioner claims directions against respondent no. 2 to pay the petitioner the amount of compensation as detailed in the Circular issued by the respondent – Board on account of the electrocution of the husband of the petitioner on 2/8/1997. 2. The husband of the petitioner died due to electrocution on account of coming in contact with the electric pole in the garden of the Shivaji Maharaj statue on 1/8/1997. The petitioner made an application that the respondent – board for the grant of compensation has laid down in the certificate issued by the Board dated 28/1/1993. The Assistant Electrical Inspector, Jalgaon recorded the statement of the brother-in-law of the petitioner on 4/8/1997, still the petitioner was not paid the compensation amount. Hence the present petition. 3. The respondent – Board has filed affidavit contending that it is not the responsibility of the Board to pay the compensation as the said accident occured in the premises owned and maintained by the Municipal Council , Jalgaon ( now Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon ). According to the 3 W.P. 1840/98 - ( J ) Board, the maintenance of the electrical poles is the duty of the Municipal Council and the Board is not responsible for the same. However, in the said affidavit in reply, they have not disputed about the death caused to the husband of the petitioner due to the electrocution. 4. Shri. Sangale, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the duty of the Board to maintain the electric supply lines and as such relies on Rule 29 and 30 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. He contends that as the accident is not disputed, the matter does not involve any disputed questions of fact. He also relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Shashikalabai V/s State of Maharashtra and another reported in AIR 1999 – Supreme Court – 706, wherein on the basis of the said Circular, in the same set of facts, the Apex Court had awarded compensation. 5. Mr. Mundhe, the learned counsel for the respondent – Board contended that though the Board has not disputed the accident, still the Board does not take the responsibility of the payment of compensation as the said accident occured in the garden which was owned and maintained by the then Municipal Council, Jalgaon and as such contends that the Board is not responsible to pay the compensation. Mr. Mundhe relies on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa 4 W.P. 1840/98 - ( J ) Ltd. and others V/s Timudu Oram reported in 2005 – Supreme Court – 3971 and in case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. ( GRIDCO ) and others V/s Smt. Sukamani Das and another - reported in AIR 1999 – Supreme Court 3412 (1) to contend that without deciding the disputed questions of fact, compensation can not be awarded. 6. In the present case, the death caused to the husband of the petitioner due to electrocution is not the disputed fact. The only contention of the respondent – Board is that the accident had occured in the garden which is owned and maintained by the Municipal Council, Jalgaon and as such respondent – Board is not liable to pay compensation. 7. The fact that the garden is a public place, can not be a subject matter of debate. The Board can not absolve itself of the maintenance, protection and operation of the electric supply lines and apparatus. The Rules i.e. Rule 29 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 lays down the responsibility on the Board to maintain and operate all electric supply lines and apparatus. It also lays down a mandate upon them that they shall be constructed, installed, protected, and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property. So also, Rule 30 of the said Rules, 1956 cast responsibility on the Board to ensure that all electric supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus belonging to it or 5 W.P. 1840/98 - ( J ) under his control, which are on consumers premises are in a safe condition and fit for supplying energy and the supplier shall take due precaution to avoid danger arising on such premises from such supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus. The accident having occured on a public place, it was the duty of the Board to maintain the said wires and fittings. Non observance of the said duty, amounts to non -feasance on the part of the Board, thereby making it liable for the tortious liability. 8. In light of the above, we are inclined to allow the petition and direct the respondent – Board to pay the compensation of Rs. 60,000/- as detailed in the Circular dated 28/1/1993 to the petitioner with interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of petition till the actual payment. The Board shall make the payment within the period of 3 months from today. 9. Rule is made absolute on above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 1840.98