IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13822 OF 2000 Between: N.V. Subba Rao ..... Petitioner AND 1. The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad & 2 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13822 OF 2000 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the first respondent in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 28.05.1999, for grant of compensation, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was hitherto working as a Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force at Vijayawada. He was allotted Type- II Quarter No.89/8 on 03.07.1996. It is his case that there were electrical defects in the house and, therefore, they had given complaint to the second respondent in the month of April, 1999. The petitioner would contend that the second respondent had sent an electrician i.e., Sri A. Prasada Rao for repairs. While matters stood thus, on 14.05.1999 the petitioner’s wife, along with her children, fell down on the ground on receiving shock due to short circuit and bad wiring in the quarters; all of them were taken in a rickshaw to the hospital; and the petitioner’s last daughter died because of electrical shock. The doctors at the Railway Hospital, Vijayawada, where the petitioner’s daughter was examined, declared that she was brought dead. The third respondent, vide proceedings dated 28.05.1999, recommended the case of the petitioner, to the second respondent, for payment of compensation for the death of his daughter. Subsequently, the petitioner also submitted a representation to the second respondent but to no avail. The petitioner would submit that the department had itself issued a charge sheet against Sri A. Prasada Rao, Khalasi Helper, that, while attending to the repairs at the petitioner’s quarters, he had failed to ensure the existence of phase circuit in the tumbler switch, and, on his being found guilty, punishment was also imposed on him. According to the petitioner, this itself was proof that the electrical maintenance of the quarters was improper and it was because of the negligence of the respondents that his daughter had died. This Court, by order dated 12.08.2010, directed the respondents to produce all the records including enquiry reports, if any. Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Railways, on instructions, would submit that no records are available except the memo dated 06.09.2001; the accident had occurred on account of the petitioner’s own fault in illegally tapping the overhead electrical wire; the petitioner’s version was at variance with that of his wife’s; the unfortunate demise of the petitioner’s daughter was not on account of the negligence of the Railways; and the petitioner was not entitled for compensation. That the petitioner’s daughter died due to electrical shock, and the electrical shock which the petitioner’s daughter had, was at the quarters provided by Railways (which was under the occupation of the petitioner) is not in dispute. The alleged inconsistency between the petitioner’s statement and that of his wife is inconsequential. While the petitioner claimed that the incident occurred in the quarters itself, the petitioner’s wife stated that it happened in the backyard when she went to dry the clothes. It is also not in dispute that the backyard forms part of the railway quarters. I see no inconsistency, between what was stated by the petitioner and his wife. In order to substantiate the allegation of illegal tapping, the enquiry report, relating to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the electrician, is sought to be relied upon. If, indeed, the petitioner had resorted to illegal tapping, disciplinary action ought to have been taken against him for such unauthorized acts and punishment should have been imposed on him in that regard. It is not in dispute that no disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner. I see no reason, therefore, to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondent-Railways that the petitioner is not entitled for compensation as the accident occurred on account of his fault in illegally tapping an electrical line. The over all circumstances, including the undisputed fact that the petitioner had asked for an electrician to be deputed prior to the date of accident, would necessitate the conclusion that the accident occurred because of electrical short circuit in the quarters itself. The contention that the electrician went there only to repair the fan and nothing else, in the light of the subsequent event of the death of the petitioner’s daughter due to electric shock and the other members of the family also sustaining minor injuries because of the shock received by them, does not, prima facie, merit acceptance. In any event, I do not consider it appropriate to conclusively determine whether or not the Railways is solely to blame for the death of the petitioner’s daughter because of electric shock. Ends of justice should be met if the first respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the petitioner as part compensation for the death of his daughter on account of the electric shock sustained by her in the Railway Quarters wherein she was residing along with her parents. This order shall not preclude the petitioner from availing the common law remedy of a civil suit for claiming higher compensation for the negligence of the Railways in not properly maintaining the quarters given to the petitioner for his occupation. It is made clear that in case such a suit is filed, the Civil Court shall adjudicate the same on merits uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 23rd September, 2010. KL HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13822 OF 2000 23rd September, 2010. KL