IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1542 of 2002 DR.VISHWANATH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 16 2.12.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Board. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs for the death of his wife late Renu Devi, aged about 28 years, minor daughter late Jyoti Kumari and minor son Raushan Kumar, both aged about 5 years and 2 years respectively due to inaction and negligent acts of the respondents. The petitioner made a fardbeyan before the police on 6.10.1987 giving rise of U.D. Case No.8/87 dated 6.10.1987. He alleged that the transformer of the Board which was installed near the house of the petitioner got burnt and exploded as a result of which three of his family members sustained injuries and died. It was also stated that apart from these three, some other persons including the petitioner also sustained injuries. He alleged that the transformer was not working properly for quite some time and information regarding the same was given to the Electricity Board. The District Magistrate, Gaya set up an enquiry and Shri R.B. Singh, Deputy Collector, Gaya after enquiry submitted his report stating therein that the transformer got burnt and exploded due to negligence of the electricity department, 2 although they were informed about the malfunctioning and damaged condition of the transformer. A copy of the enquiry report is annexed at Annexure-2. After receipt of the aforesaid report, the District Magistrate, Gaya also made recommendation to respondent no.2, the Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, for making payment of compensation. A copy of recommendation of the District Magistrate, Gaya dated 18.2.1988 is annexed at Annexure-3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No.5675 of 1988 for payment of compensation for the death of his wife and two minor children which was disposed of by order dated 15.9.1998. The Division Bench in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid order observed that though prayer was made for awarding compensation, but during the course of hearing the petitioner only pressed that the Board should consider for giving employment to his son Deepak Kumar who is unemployed. Noticing the submission that the Board will consider the case of the petitioner for giving employment to his son, this writ petition was disposed of in the aforesaid term. The petitioner in light of the order of this court filed application before the Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, for appointment of his son which was ultimately rejected by the Board by order dated 20.4.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt application being M.J.C.No.1638 of 1999 which was dismissed by order dated 7.3.2001 wherein it was observed that 3 as the Board had disposed of the application of the petitioner for employment of his son vide Annexure-5, no case for contempt is made out. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition for payment of compensation. This court by order dated 18.3.2002 while observing that the Electricity Board has paid only a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the petitioner, directed it to file counter affidavit within six weeks. On 30.7.2002 this court in paragraphs 1 and 2 observed as follows: “Even before the parties could place their respective cases on merits, this court found from the office order dated 20.4.1999 (Annexure-5) that the Board has put the value of three lives at Rs.25,000/-. This, to say the least, shocks the conscience of this court. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned Standing counsel for the Board has still some hope that some reasonable settlement may be made by the Board itself and this court may not be called upon to adjudicate on this case. He naturally needs some time to explore the possibilities”. On 1.10.2002 a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the Board enclosing office order no.3819, dated 24.9.2002 issued by the Board, whereby it had sanctioned an additional payment of Rs.1,75,000/- to the petitioner. Thus, the total amount sanctioned to the petitioner was Rs.2 lacs. Thereafter, this case was directed to be listed on 25.11.2002 for further hearing. 4 Counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that his wife was appointed as teacher in L.P. School Dhob Chirianya under Sherghatty Anchal, District Gaya on 12.9.1997 and she died on 6.10.1987 due to blast and explosion of the transformer. He submits that the petitioner’s wife was appointed in a nationalized school, and if she would have been alive, her annual income even at modest rate would have been Rs.50,000 per annum. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Board submits that in the writ petition the petitioner limited his prayer to employment of his son only and as such the instant writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the Board has already sanctioned compensation of Rs.2 lacs to the petitioner in the year 2002 itself. The petitioner replies that only when employment of the petitioner’s son was refused, then he had filed the instant writ petition for payment of compensation as he was loosing both on compensation and the employment. In support of his claim to compensation he relied upon a decision in the case of Ram Swaroop Yadav Vs Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors, reported in 2004(2) P.L.J.R. 525 wherein this court awarded a compensation of Rs.2 lacs on account of death due to snapping of electrical wire. The learned Judge in para 10 held as follows: “……….From the conspectus of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, there is no 5 difficulty in accepting the broad submission that without providing negligence no body is entitled for compensation and when the liability is denied on the ground that there was no negligence, or there is a disputed question of fact, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. Further it is true that the right claimed by the petitioner is not capable of being established in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and one has to bear in mind that the object of conferment of jurisdiction under the said Article is for enforcement and not establishment of right. This is further a rule of discretion and not of exclusion of jurisdiction, hence this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review is not incompetent to decide an issue of fact, which can be determined from the materials on record. Further one can not lose sight of the fact that right to life is a fundamental right guaranteed under supreme law of the country and when there is negligence on the face of it, it cannot be said that recourse must be had to suit. It is one thing to say that the writ petition be dismissed on the ground that same involves disputed question of fact, then to say that the person claiming compensation be put to strict proof of the same”. In regard to quantum of compensation to be paid, the learned Judge in paragraph 14 has held as follows: “14. …………..Compensation is a device, which the law has contemplated to be paid to a person who had suffered the loss by a person whose act or omission had led to loss or the injury and 6 justice demands that it should be equal in value. However, it is equally well settled that perfect compensation is hardly possible. Compensation awarded should be adequate and reasonable but should not be excessive or fanciful. There can be no exact or firm rule for measuring value of human life and the loss cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation but has to be decided on the basis of broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive nor it should be a source of profit. In the facts of the present case I am of the opinion that a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs shall be just and proper. However, in case the petitioner believes that he is entitled for more compensation, nothing shall prevent him from bringing an appropriate action for that purpose…………” As the matter is of the year 1987, this court at first sight was not inclined to enhance the amount of compensation already sanctioned and disbursed but two factors weighed heavily for taking the other view. Firstly, the petitioner has been continuously pursuing his relief and compensation issued was settled by Board only in 2002. Secondly, the wife of the petitioner, who too was an earning member being a teacher in a nationalized school, died within one month of joining, which would also severely affect pensionary prospects as well. It is common knowledge that if petitioner’s wife would have been alive, she would have been earned Rs.50,000/- per annum even at a moderate rate. She died at the younger age of 28 years. The 7 KHAN death occurred on account of explosion of the transformer, is not in dispute. In backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that payment of additional sum of Rs.50,000/- would be a reasonable settlement. The respondent Board is accordingly directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner, within three months from today, failing which the Board would be liable to pay market interest. If the petitioner believes that he is entitled for more compensation, he can pursue his remedy available under law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)