IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1386 of 2008 Bhullar Devi W/o Ram Briksha Thakur R/o village-Patahi Jagarnath, PS- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur------Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board thorough its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 2. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 3. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Tirhut Electric Supply Range, Bhagwanpur Chauk, Muzaffarpur 4. Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Bihar State Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur 5. Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division (East) Bihar State Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur-------Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocatre Mr. Arvind Kumar Advocate Mr. Nand Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Electricity Board: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate --------------------------------- 8 8.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar Electricity Board. This writ petition has been filed claiming compensation to the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses on the ground that the petitioner’s son died due to electrocution on 17.8.2003 at 8.00 P.M. The prosecution case is that the son of the petitioner, namely, Pramod Thakur who is resident of L.P.Shahi Road of village- Patahi Jagarnath District- Muzaffarpur had gone outside from the house for call of nature on 17.8.2008 at about 8. P.M. His dead body was recovered behind Ram Janki Store, the next morning. It is alleged that electric wire was wrapped about his body. An FIR was instituted numbered as U.D. Case No. 7 of2003 and enquiry was held. Postmortem was also prepared and the cause of death was found due to accidental electrocution. 2 Learned counsel on behalf of Electricity Board submits that with regard to the accident a report was prepared by the electricity department. The report indicates that the petitioner’s son died because he was trying to take illegal connection by using ‘Toka’ through the electric wire which resulted in the said accident. The question before this Court is whether the petitioner’s son died due to an accident, because the allegation was that the death of the petitioner’s son was due to negligence on the part of Electricity Board, as the electric wire running through the village was loose and not maintained by the Board. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board submits, that it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of SDO Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & others vs. Timudu Oram reported in (2005) 6 SCC 156, that the question of negligence was required to be established by the claimants. Mere fact that the electric line had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It is held that the High Court cannot interfere in such matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case disputed question of fact have arisen, as the claim of the petitioner is that the death took place due to accident, based on a claim that the wire running through the village was not properly maintained, which resulted in the accident, whereas the case of the Board is that the son of the petitioner was trying to disturb the electric line by taking illegal connection and he was electrocuted. In the circumstances this Court cannot give any relief to the petitioner by directing the Electricity Board to pay compensation. 3 Annexure-A is the report filed with the supplementary counter affidavit. The Junior Engineer of the electricity department has come to the conclusion that it was the petitioner’s son who to blame for the accident, as it took place while he was attempting to take illegal connection. He has also stated that when it came to the knowledge of department that electric wire had fallen down, they took steps to repair the wire. The counsel for the petitioner submits the fact that the wire had snapped, supports the case of the petitioner rather than the Board. Be that as it may this Court is therefore not inclined to intervene in the matter where there are disputed facts. The petitioner would have option to take suitable action against the Board, by moving the Human Right Commission or by filing a civil suit for compensation. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. RPS (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)