Writ Petition for Electrocution Compensation Involving Disputed Facts Must Be Pursued via Civil Suit

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- following the death of his son, Dasrath Ram.

It was alleged that the deceased was electrocuted due to the negligence of the Electricity Department, specifically because live high-voltage wires were left hanging over a field near the Khabra Power House.

During the proceedings, the respondents contended that the matter involved disputed facts and was governed by existing precedents regarding the maintainability of writ petitions in such compensation claims.

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

The Court primarily relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Ors. v. Sukmani Das Anr. [(1999) 7 SCC 298], which establishes that when negligence is a disputed question of fact, the appropriate remedy is a civil suit rather than a writ petition.

The court also followed its own recent coordinate bench decision in Nizamuddin Ansari v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited Ors. (CWJC No. 8470 of 2022).

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the negligence claim. Instead, it focused on the procedural maintainability of the relief sought.

Following the respondent's argument that the case was "squarely covered" by the principles in Sukmani Das and Nizamuddin Ansari, the Court determined that the petitioner could not be granted compensation directly through the writ jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that since the matter involved factual determinations regarding "carelessness" and the circumstances of the electrocution, the petitioner must approach the appropriate fact-finding authority.

It granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for compensation before the concerned Civil Court.

The Court further directed that if such a petition is filed, the lower court is expected to dispose of it expeditiously. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.