C.W.P. No.13259 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.13259 of 2010 Date of Decision. 14.07.2011 Komal Rani widow of late Sh. Ashok Kumar s/o Surjit Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab through its Secretary, Department of Electricity, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Parshant Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Mittal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. PPS Thethi, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 6. 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 writ petitioner seeks for compensation for death due to alleged electrocution on account of the improper maintenance of the Electricity Board in allowing high tension wires to prevail over a residential building and exposing a extraordinary risk and harm to the life of his husband. The resort to a public law remedy in cases of electrocution where there is an admission of death due to electric shock by overhanging wires and where the element of negligence on the part of the Electricity in poor upkeep of the electricity wires have come through several decisions but if the issue of the death due to electrocution itself is in doubt, it should be the primary duty of the C.W.P. No.13259 of 2010 -2- Court to examine whether there are sufficient materials for drawing such an inference. 2. The petitioner points out to the fact that in an inquest held soon after his death, it was recorded that the deceased had died on account of electrocution. The ASI, who has drawn a report of death under Section 174 Cr.P.C. has also recorded in the DDR that he had died due to electrocution. The facts as recorded in the documents are contested by the Electricity Board to show that there was no incident of an electric shock at all and in a postmortem certificate, which was issued after carrying the examination of the dead body, the Doctor has referred as follows:- “In my opinion the cause of death in this case is due to head injury (injury to vital organs) and lung, leading to hemorrhage, shock and death which is sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. All injuries are antimortem.” 3. It must be remembered that it is not merely a simple electric shock by a household appliance but it is alleged to be on account of a person coming in contact with a high tension wire. There is no reference to the charring of body in postmortem. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the electric shock was the proximate cause that triggered his death by his fall on the ground and that was why there was no charring of the body. There is no positive proof that there was electrocution. The petitioner would however state that there are several injuries to show that the person died on account of electrocution. I am afraid that I may not able to rely on any disputed question of fact that the petitioner came in contact with the live wire C.W.P. No.13259 of 2010 -3- and that had happened on account of a poor upkeep of the appliances of safety by the Electricity Board. It requires evidence to prove, to be led in properly instituted suit and the petitioner will secure appropriate reliefs by letting in evidence to support his contention. If I have observed that there is no prima facie material for making an inference that he had died only on account of electrocution, I do this by reference merely to documents and I have not had the benefit of evidence of persons who may have seen the incident, if it had happened in the manner narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition. 4. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as this is not an appropriate remedy in a case where the assertion of the fact that a person had died only due to electrocution by overhanging high tension wire is denied and therefore, the petitioner shall have a remedy in a properly instituted civil suit. 5. The writ petition is dismissed but petitioner will have a remedy in the manner referred to above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 14, 2011 Pankaj*