IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7187 of 2002 NITESH KUMAR TIWARI SON OF SRI VINOD KUMAR TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SALEHPUR, P.O. HASANPUR MATHIYA, P.S. MOHAMMADPUR, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER SRI VINOD KUMAR TIWARI. ………..PETITIONER Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL), AREA BOARD, MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR. 4. SUPERINTNDING ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHAPRA CIRCLE, CHAPRA 5. XECUTIVE ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. ………RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate 8 11.1.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Board. This writ petition has been filed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lacs to the petitioner as he suffered amputation of his right hand due to electrocution from high voltage live wire hanging low. It is stated that on 5.12.2001 the petitioner, who was at the relevant time aged about 12 years, had gone to Rajiv Nagar to meet his relative. On way while he was trying to pluck flower from nearby pond, he was electrocuted by the live high tension wire which was hanging low. Thereafter the petitioner was taken to the Gopalganj Sadar Hospital, where he was admitted in the burn ward. However, the Doctors attending referred him to the Patna Medical College Hospital where he was treated as an 2 outdoor patient. The prescriptions and the injury report, contained in Annexures 1 and 2 would show that the petitioner sustained injury on his right arm and left foot. The petitioner on advise of the local Doctor was taken to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi where the Doctor did not find any other way to help the petitioner but to amputate his right hand. The statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Sarojani Nagar Police Station wherein he had stated that he was thrown by an electric line bearing 33 KV Volt which was hanging low. A copy of the statement and the prescription of Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi are annexed at Annexures- 3 and 4. Thereafter, on 11.2.2002 the father of the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer (Electrical), Area Board, Muzaffarpur stating therein that on 5.12.2001 at about 6.30 A.M., when his son was plucking flowers near a pond, the high tension electric wire of 11 KV/33 KV which was hanging at height of 5 ft. from the ground caused electrocution to his son. He submits that no earth wire was provided at the said site although it was mandatory. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of amputation of right hand, the petitioner has almost been rendered ineffective and this has affected his future prospect of livelihood. He states that a Division Bench of this court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board & anr Vs Ramswarup Yadav & Ors, reported in 2006(2) BBCJ 192 observed that the Board should take a more realistic, positive and helpful stand in the matter of electrocution. It further advised that the Board should issue necessary directions and ensure that whenever any accidental electrocution/electrical mishap takes place, a team of its local 3 functionaries/Field Officers should visit the spot. The team who visit the spot should collect all the relevant details and should take down the statements of the family members of the victim, the neighbours or any other independent witnesses who might have seen the occurrence. It would be relevant to quote paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment as follows: “10.But before closing the records, I would like to add a few words of advise for the Board. In causes of accidental electrocution of the present kind, the Board must take a more reasonable if not humane stand. I am fully conscious of the financial and other constraints faced by the Board. I am aware of the unfortunate reality that the Board is simply unable to maintain and operate its installations writ strict application of the statutory safeguards or subject to safety measures followed by the highly developed and industrialized countries. A case of accidental electrocution of the present kind is neither the first nor unfortunately the last that would take place. Accidents should not happen, but they do. In such cases, the Board does not help anyone, least of all itself by taking an ostrich like position and denying the occurrence itself. This Court would advise the Board to take a more realistic, positive and helpful stand in the matter. It should issue necessary directions and ensure that whenever any accidental electrocution/electrical mishap takes place, a team of its local functionaries/Field Officers visits the spot. The team should first ascertain the source of mishap, whether it was the fittings at any private/public premises (not concerning the Board) or it was any of the installations of the Board. It should collect all the relevant details and should take down the statements of the family members of the victim, the neighbours or 4 any other independent witnesses who might have seen the occurrence. A report should then be submitted to the local area and it should finally come to the Board for taking a decision with regard to prevention of such occurrence in future, payment of reasonable compensation to the victim/his heirs and any other related matters. In case the matter comes to Court, the materials collected by the team visiting the spot, its report and the decision taken on its basis should be placed for the scrutiny of the Court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board, wherein in paragraph 12 it has been stated that it is impossible that a person, much less a child, can survive an electric shock of 33000 volts. It is further stated that no information either from the local people, administration or the police even after or before 5.12.2001 was received by the respondents. It has been stated that due to heavy flood in the month of August 2001, on the request of the district administration, transmission of electricity through the aforesaid 33 KV line was stopped up to 16.9.2001 and was energized again on 17.9.2002. Learned counsel for the Board submits that from perusal of the orders passed by this court, contained in Annexures-F, G and H would show that only an enquiry could reveal whether the victim sustained any electrocution in the manner alleged. He further submits that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board & anr Vs Ramswarup Yadav & Ors (supra) would not be applicable in this case as in that case the person concerned had died whereas in the instant case the petitioner even as per his case had sustained amputation of his right 5 arm on account of electrocution. In support of his contention, he has referred to an enquiry report dated 30.9.2002, that no electrocution took place on the alleged date of occurrence nor any damage to the wire was caused. It would appear from Annexure-3 that the statement of family members of the victim or people nearby area was not taken while making the enquiry. In normal circumstances, I would have remanded the matter to the Board to make a fresh enquiry wherein statement of the people of the neighbouring area and the family members would have been taken. But as the matter is of the year 2001, I do not intend to direct any such enquiry as more than 8 ½ years have passed since then. Though a question has been raised whether the petitioner could have survived at all after sustained electric shock of high voltage at 33 KV, the fact remains and stands affirmed from the medical report that the child sustained electric burn injury. Further more, the petitioner was treated at Patna and was taken to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi for treatment. Though the petitioner was lucky not to die of electrocution certainly he has became physically handicapped on account of amputation of right arm. This disability would definitely affect the quality of his life and impair his capacity to earn. In the circumstances, the Board would be at least liable to pay the expenditure incurred in course of treatment of the petitioner, if not for loss of his right hand which aspect may be adjudicated in appropriate Civil Court. Thus, I direct the Board to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order otherwise the former would be liable to pay simple interest at 6 KHAN the rate of 9%. However, this order will not come in the way of the petitioner for taking recourse to any other remedy available in law if he feels that he is entitled to higher amount of compensation. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)