C.W.P. No.17228 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17228 of 2011 Date of Decision.14.09.2011 Batheri Devi wife of Ved Parkash and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana through its Secretary, Ministry of Power, Govt. of Haryana, Sector 17 at Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Pankaj MIddha, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.10 lacs for death of their son, who while working in the property of one Raghubir Singh for setting right a submersible pump, received an electric shock and died. The claim is that the electric shock passing through the wall was on account of electricity supplied by the Electricity Board and Electricity Board must take the responsibility for the accident. 2. It is a strange logic for a person to make claim against the Electricity Board only because the electric installation belong to the Electricity Board when the writ petition itself contains an argument that the deceased was working on a submersible pump in a private property of a particular individual and while doing the work, he received the electric shock and died. His remedy would be against the individual at whose premises he was working if there was a negligence on his part and not against the Electricity Board. If it were to be contended that C.W.P. No.17228 of 2011 -2- electric shock was received at public place and that public place was maintained by the Electricity Board, it would be surely a matter that could require to be adjudicated in a properly instituted civil action where evidence could be given and the correctness of the petitioners' contention could be tested by cross-examination. The remedy through the writ petition in such a situation, which involves serious disputed questions of fact does not arise. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 14, 2011 Pankaj*