Writ petition for electrocution compensation involving disputed facts dismissed with liberty to file civil suit.

The petitioner, Smt. Bimla Bai Verma, filed a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking compensation of ₹86 lakhs for the death of her husband, Dhiraji Ram Verma, who died due to electrocution

The petitioner had already received an ex-gratia payment of ₹4 lakhs from the respondent electricity department

The respondents (Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.) contested the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the claim involved disputed questions of fact regarding negligence that required trial and evidence

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is the appropriate remedy for seeking enhanced compensation involving disputed questions of fact regarding negligence in electrocution cases?

2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to approach a Civil Court despite potential hurdles of limitation and court fees?

The court primarily relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction is generally not exercised when disputed questions of fact regarding negligence are involved, as established by the Supreme Court in Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) v. Sukamani Das (1999) 7 SCC 298 and SDO, Grid Corp. of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram (2005) 6 SCC 156

It further applied the procedural precedents set by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Rameshwari v. Junior/Assistant Engineer (FA No. 151/2023) and CSPDCL v. Smt. Hemlata Netam (FA No. 63/2021), which hold that in such transfers from writ to civil proceedings, the issues of limitation and court fees should not preclude the filing of a civil suit

The court observed that the petitioner was claiming a substantial sum (₹86 lakhs) based on allegations of negligence which the respondents disputed

Applying the precedent from Sukamani Das, the court noted that such negligence must be proved through evidence in a full trial, making the writ petition unsuitable for final adjudication

Upon the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ and pursue a civil remedy, the court analyzed the potential bar of limitation. Relying on its own Division Bench rulings, the court reasoned that the time spent bona fide litigating before the High Court should be protected to ensure the petitioner is not left without a remedy due to procedural delays

The court held that if such a suit is filed, the Civil Court shall not insist upon the issue of limitation given the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court

The petition was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs