# Neetu Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1279
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-09-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23783 of 2010
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neetu-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43123
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Indian Electricity Rules, 1956-Rule 29,
30(4),
51(1)
and
77
(3)-Duty
of
electricity department to maintain proper
supply-petitioner's husband about 26
years loss of his life due to electrocution-
1280
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claim of immediate compensation-denied
shifting
responsibility
upon
Principal
I.T.I-apart from compensation of Rs. 75
lac-held-apart from forum of Civil Suit-Rs.
12 Lac shall be solace to her-accordingly
direction issued to deposit 12 Lacs within
two months-in case of default -D.M. to
recover as arrears of Land revenue.
Held: Para-19
Accordingly, in view of above, since in
the
present
case,
the
petitioner's
husband suffered because of negligence
on the part of the respondents No.2, 5
and 6, and while staying with his own
friend
petitioner's
husband
died
on
account of electrocution at the young
age of 26 years leaving the petitioner
widow,
this
Court
may
grant
compensation which shall be in addition
to the petitioner's right in accordance
with law before the appropriate court or
forum.
Case Law discussed:
2012 (9) SCC 791; (2005) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 344.

## Text

3 All]. Ram Rekha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1279
of the view that the proceedings cannot be
sustained. The order passed consequent to
such proceedings by the respondents is
liable to be set aside.
22. Noteworthy it is that even in the
punishment order, as regards practically
all the charges against the petitioner, the
disciplinary
authority
has
merely
observed that the delinquent had not
adduced any evidence to refute the
charges and hence, the same stood
proved. The basic requirement of the
primary evidence on the part of the
department to substantiate the charges
appears to have been ignored as if with
the assumption that levelling of charges
was sufficient and no evidence was
requisite to substantiate the same. This
approach cannot be countenanced.
23. We may also observe that it has
repeatedly been sought to be asserted by
the Inquiry Officer as also by the
disciplinary authority that the relevant
record was retained by the delinquent
himself. Significantly, even the primary
evidence in this regard had also not been
adduced to establish that the referred
record was in the possession of the
delinquent-petitioner.
24. In view of what has been
discussed hereinabove, the impugned
order of punishment and also the inquiry
report are required to be quashed.
However, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, it appears just and proper to
allow the respondents to hold the
disciplinary proceedings afresh from the
stage of serving of the charge sheet.
25. Accordingly and in view of
above, this writ petition succeeds and is
allowed to that extent and in the manner
indicated.
The
impugned
order
of
punishment dated 01.02.2012 and so also
the inquiry report dated 02.06.2008 are
quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall
be reinstated in service forthwith. The
respondents shall hold the disciplinary
proceedings afresh from the stage of serving
of charge sheet and for that purpose, it shall
be open for the respondents to appoint any
other Inquiry Officer, if so chosen. The
Inquiry Officer shall fix a date for
proceeding with the inquiry with due notice
to the petitioner and shall attempt to
conclude the proceedings at the earliest,
preferably within a period of four months
from the first date of appearance of the
petitioner. The payment of arrears and
salary etc., for the period during which the
petitioner had remained out of service, shall
be subject to the final decision taken by the
respondents
while
concluding
the
proceedings afresh.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23783 of 2010
Neetu Devi...
Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nisheeth Yadav, Sri C.B. Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rajesh Tripathi
Indian Electricity Rules, 1956-Rule 29,
30(4),
51(1)
and
77
(3)-Duty
of
electricity department to maintain proper
supply-petitioner's husband about 26
years loss of his life due to electrocution-
1280
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claim of immediate compensation-denied
shifting
responsibility
upon
Principal
I.T.I-apart from compensation of Rs. 75
lac-held-apart from forum of Civil Suit-Rs.
12 Lac shall be solace to her-accordingly
direction issued to deposit 12 Lacs within
two months-in case of default -D.M. to
recover as arrears of Land revenue.
Held: Para-19
Accordingly, in view of above, since in
the
present
case,
the
petitioner's
husband suffered because of negligence
on the part of the respondents No.2, 5
and 6, and while staying with his own
friend
petitioner's
husband
died
on
account of electrocution at the young
age of 26 years leaving the petitioner
widow,
this
Court
may
grant
compensation which shall be in addition
to the petitioner's right in accordance
with law before the appropriate court or
forum.
Case Law discussed:
2012 (9) SCC 791; (2005) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 344.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)
1

Heard
learned
counsel
representing the parties. The petitioner
has preferred the instant writ petition
under Article 226 of the constitution of
India to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the U.P. Power
Corporation
Limited
to
pay
compensation.
2 According to the petitioner's
counsel, petitioner's husband on 8.7.2009,
at about 6:30 a.m., Arimardan Singh came
in contact with the insulated open cable
installed by U.P. Power Corporation
Limited. On being touched with the
insulated cable, he was electrocuted and
succumbed to injuries. Post mortem was
conducted and the post mortem report
revealed
that
he
died
because
of
electrocution. A copy of post mortem
report of petitioner's husband, has been
annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ
petition. After the death of petitioner's
husband, the petitioner requested the
Executive
Engineer
of
U.P.
Power
Corporation Limited for payment of
compensation. A copy of representation
submitted to the competent authority, has
been filed as Anenxure No.4 to the writ
petition.
3 It has also been submitted by the
petitioner's counsel that the incident
occurred because of lapse on the part of
U.P. Power Corporation Limited and its
Maintenance Engineer. On account of
negligence of the U.P. Power Corporation
Limited to maintain its electricity line, the
electrocution took place.
A legal notice was also sent by the
petitioner for payment of compensation to
the tune of Rs.75,00,000/-. In spite of
repeated requests made, the compensation
was not paid.
4 Submission of the petitioner's
counsel is that in pursuance of provisions
contained in Rule 29, 30 (4), 50 (1) and
77 (3) of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956,
the petitioner is entitled for compensation.
It is also submitted that immediate
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- should
also be paid to the petitioner under
relevant Rules. A specific pleading has
been made in the writ petition that the
respondent
U.P.
Power
Corporation
Limited has not maintained its electricity
line with sufficient care to prevent such
mis-happening.
Accordingly,
the
dependant of the deceased person who
suffered on account of ill-maintenance of
electricity line, shall be entitled for
payment of compensation. The aforesaid
3 All]. Neetu Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1281
Rules relied upon by the petitioner's
counsel, are reproduced as under:-
29.
Construction,
installation,
protection, operation and maintenance of
electric supply lines and apparatus-- (1)
All electric supply lines and apparatus
shall be of sufficient ratings for power,
insulation and estimated fault current and
of sufficient mechanical strength, for the
duty which they may be required to
perform
under
the
environmental
conditions of installation, and shall be
constructed, installed, protected, worked
and maintained in such a manner as to
ensure safety of [human beings, animals
and property.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in
these rules, the relevant code of practice
of the 3[Bureau of Indian Standards]
4[including National Electrical Code] if
any may be followed to carry out the
purposes of this rule and in the event of
any inconsistency, the provision of these
rules shall prevail.
(3) The material and apparatus used
shall
conform
to
the
relevant
specifications of the [Bureau of Indian
Standards] where such specifications have
already been laid down.
30. Service lines and apparatus on
consumer's premises-- (1) The supplier
shall ensure that all electric supply lines,
wires, fittings and apparatus belonging to
him or under his control, which are on a
consumer's premises, are in a safe
condition and in all respects fit for
supplying energy and the supplier shall
take due precautions to avoid danger
arising on such premises from such
supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus.
(2) Service-lines placed by the
supplier on the premises of a consumer
which are underground or which are
accessible shall be so insulated and
protected by the supplier as to be secured
under all ordinary conditions against
electrical, mechanical, chemical or other
injury to the insulation.
(3) The consumer shall, as far as
circumstances permit, take precautions for
the safe custody of the equipment on his
premises belonging to the supplier.
(4) The consumer shall also ensure
that the installation under his control is
maintained in a safe condition.
50. Supply and use of energy-- (1)
The energy shall not be supplied,
transformed,
converted
or
used
or
continued to be supplied, transformed,
converted or used unless provisions as set
out below are observed:-
(a) The following controls of requisite
capacity to carry and break the current 2[are
placed] after the point of commencement of
supply as defined in rule 58 so as to be
readily accessible and capable of being
easily operated to completely isolate the
supply to the installation such equipment
being in addition to any equipment installed
for
controlling
individual
circuits
or
apparatus: -
(i) a linked switch with fuse(s) or a
circuit breaker by low and medium
voltage consumers.
(ii) a linked switch with fuse(s) or a
circuit breaker by HV consumers having
aggregate installed transformer/apparatus
capacity up to 1000 KVA to be supplied
at voltage upto 11 KV and 2500 KVA at
higher -voltages (above 11 KV and not
exceeding 33 KV).
(iii) a circuit breaker by HV
consumers having an aggregate installed
transformer/apparatus capacity above
1000 KVA and supplied at 11 KV and
1282
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
above 2500 KVA supplied at higher
voltages (above 11 KV and not exceeding
33 KV).
(iv) a circuit breaker by EHV
consumer;
Provided that where the point of
commencement
of
supply
and
the
consumer apparatus are near each other
one linked switch with fuse(s) or circuit
breaker near the point of commencement
of supply as required by this clause shall
be considered sufficient for the purpose of
this rule;
(b) In case of every transformer the
following shall be provided: -
(i) On primary side for transformers
a linked switch with fuse(s) or circuit
breaker of adequate capacity:
Provided that the linked switch on
the primary side of the transformer may
be of such capacity as to carry the full
load current and to break only the
magnetising current of the transformer:
[Provided
further
that
for
transformers--
(A) having a capacity of 5000 KVA
and above and installed before the
commencement of the Indian Electricity
(Amendment-1) Rules, 2000 and
(B) having a capacity of 1000 KVA
and above and installed on or after the
commencement of the Indian Electricity
(Amendment-1) Rules, 2000 a circuit
breaker shall be provided.]
Provided further that the provision of
linked switch on the primary side of the
transformer shall not apply to the unit
auxiliary transformer of the generator.
(ii) In respect of all transformers
installed on or after the commencement of
the Indian Electricity (Amendment-1)
Rules, 2000, on the secondary side of all
transformers transforming HV to EHV,
MV or LV a circuit breaker of adequate
rating shall be installed:
Provided
that
for
supplier's
transformers of capacity upto 630 KVA, a
linked switch with fuse or circuit breaker
of adequate rating shall be installed on
secondary side.]
(c) Except in the case of composite
control gear designed as a unit distinct
circuit is protected against excess energy
by means of suitable cut-out or a circuit
breaker of adequate breaking capacity
suitably located and, so constructed as to
prevent danger from overheating, arcing
or scattering of hot metal when it comes
into operation and to permit for ready
renewal of the fusible metal of the cut-out
without danger;
(d) The supply of energy of each
motor or a group of motors or other
apparatus
meant
for
operating
one
particular machine is controlled by a
suitable linked switch or a circuit breaker
or an emergency tripping device with
manual reset of requisite capacity placed
in such a position as to be adjacent to the
motor or a group of motors or other
apparatus readily accessible to and easily
operated by the person incharge and so
connected in the circuit that by its means
all supply of energy can be cut off from
the motor or group of motors or apparatus
from any regulating switch, resistance of
other device associated therewith;
3 All]. Neetu Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1283
(e) All insulating materials are
chosen with special regard to the
circumstances of its proposed use and
their mechanical strength is sufficient for
its purpose and so far as is practicable of
such a character or so protected as to
maintain
adequately
its
insulating
property under all working conditions in
respect of Temperature and moisture; and
(f) Adequate precautions shall be
taken to ensure that no live parts are so
exposed as to cause danger."
(2) Where energy is being supplied,
transformed, converted or used the
[consumer, supplier or the owner] of
the
concerned
installation
shall
be
responsible for the continuous observance
of the provisions of sub-rule (1) in respect
of his installations.
(3) Every consumer shall use all
reasonable mean to ensure that where
energy is supplied by a supplier no person
other than the supplier shall interfere with
the service lines and apparatus placed by
the supplier on the premises of the
consumer.]"
77. Clearance above ground of the
lowest conductor-(1) No conductor of an
overhead line, including service lines,
erected across a street shall at any part
thereof be at a height of less than--
(a) For low and medium voltage lines
5.8 metres
(b) For high voltage lines 6.1 metres
(2) No conductor of an overhead
line, including service lines, erected along
any street shall at any part thereof be at a
height less than--
(a) For low and medium voltage lines
5.5 metres
(b) For high voltage lines 5.8 metres
(3) No conductor of in overhead line
including service lines, erected elsewhere
than along or across any street shall be at
a height less than--
(a) For low, medium and high
voltages lines upto and including 11,000
volts, if bare 4.6 metres
(b) For
low, medium and high
voltage lines upto and including 11,000
volts, if insulated 4.0 metres
(c) For high voltage lines above
11,000 volts 5.2 metres
(4) For extra-high voltage lines the
clearance above ground shall not be less
than 5.2 metres plus 0.3 metre for every
33,000 volts or part thereof by which the
voltage of the line exceeds 33,000 volts.
Provided that the minimum clearance
along or across any street shall not be less
than 6.1 metres."
5 A plain reading of the aforesaid
Rules as well as factual matrix on record,
prima facie makes out a case for payment
of compensation since electrical line was
not maintained in terms of Rules (supra).
6 Rule 29 (supra) makes it
mandatory to maintain electricity supply
line and its insulation with sufficient
mechanical strength. It is because of the
failure on the part of the respondents in
maintaining the electricity line that the
petitioner's husband has succumbed to
electrocution.
7 Petitioner's counsel also relied
upon a circular dated 19.6.2008 contained
1284
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. For
convenience,
the
entire
office
memorandum
dated
19.6.2008is
reproduced as under:-
** m0 iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM
1⁄4m0 iz0 ljdkj dk midze1⁄2
U.P.
POWER
CORPORATION
LIMITED
(Govt. of Uttar Pradesh Undertaking)
______________________________
__________________________________
_____
'kfDr
Hkou
foLrkj]
14&v'kksd
ekxZ] y[kuÅ&226001
la[;k% 2400 vkS0 l0@2008&19
1⁄41251⁄2
,0
,l0@2001
fnukad% 19 twu] 2008
dk;kZy;&Kki
m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds
=qfViw.kZ fo|qrh; vf/k"Bkiu ds lEidZ
esa vkus ls ckgjh O;fDr;ksa dh ?kkrd
,oe~ lk/kkj.k nq?kZVuk ls gqbZ viaxrk
ij vuqxzg /kujkf'k vuqeU; fd;s tkus
lecU/kh dk;kZy; Kki la[;k&1780&vkSl0
la0&17@ikdkfy@2006&19 1⁄41251⁄2 ,0
,l0@2001]
fnukad
19-4-06
esa
fuEuor~ la'kks/ku rRdky izHkko ls fy;s
tkrs gSa%&
1⁄4d1⁄2 orZeku esa ?kkrd ekuo fo|qr
nq?kZVuk
ds
QyLi:i
vuqeU;
ns;
vuqxzg /kujkf'k #0 50]000@& 1⁄4#i;k
ipkl
gtkj1⁄2
ds
LFkku
ij
#0
1]00]000@&1⁄4#i;k ,d yk[k1⁄2 izfr O;fDr
gksxhA
1⁄4[k1⁄2 ckgjh O;fDr@O;fDr;ksa dh
lk/kkj.k nq?kZVuk eas gqbZ iw.kZ
viaxrk dh fLFkfr esa orZeku esa
vuqeU; {kfriwfrZ #0 50]000@&1⁄4#i;s
ipkl
gtkj1⁄2
ls
c<+kdj
#0
1]00]000@&1⁄4#i;s ,d yk[k1⁄2 izfr O;fDr
rFkk vkaf'kd viaxrk dh fLFkfr esa #0
1]00]000@&1⁄4 #0 ,d yk[k1⁄2 dh /kujkf'k
dks vtZu {kerk esa fpfdRlh; izek.k i=
ds vk/kkj ij gq, izfr'kr g`kl ds vuqlkj
x.kuk dj vuqikfr vuqxzg /kujkf'k vuqeU;
dh tk;sxh ftldh vf/kdre lhek #0 ,d yk[k
gksxhA
1⁄4x1⁄2 i'kqvksa dh ?kkrd nq?kZVuk
gsrq
vuqeU;
vuqxzg
/kujkf'k
#0
5000@&1⁄4#i;s ikap gtkj1⁄2 vuqeU; dh
tk;sxhA
izR;sd fo|qr nq?kZVuk dh fo|qr
lqj{kk funs'kky; vFkok vU; laLFkkuksa
}kjk dh xbZ tkWapksa dks laKku esa
ysdj foHkkxh; tkWap dh tk;s vkSj
{kfriwfrZ ds :i esa Hkqxrku dh xbZ
/kujkf'k dh olwyh fo|qr nq?kZVuk gsrq
mRrjnk;h 1⁄4;fn dksbZ gks rks1⁄2 dkfeZd
1⁄4vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh1⁄2
ls
vuq'kklfud
dk;Zokgh ds vfrfjDr dh tk;sA
mDr vkns'k fnukad 19-6-2008
vFkok blds mijkUr gksus okyh fo|qr
nq?kZVuk ds izdj.k ds lEcU/k esa
izHkkoh gksaxsaA
v/;{k
la[;k%
2400
1⁄411⁄2
vkSl&17@ikdkfy@2008&rn~fnukad%
izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ
,oe~ vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr %&
11⁄2
leLr
izcU/k
funs'kd]
iwokZaUpy@if'pekapy@e/;kapy@nf{k
.kkapy
fo|qr
forj.k
fuxe
fyfeVsM@dsLdks]
okjk.klh@esjB@y[kuÅ@vkxjk@dkuiqj
A
3 All]. Neetu Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1285
21⁄2 eq[; vfHk;Urk 1⁄4ty&fo|qr1⁄2] m0
iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA
31⁄2 leLr eq[; vfHk;Urk 1⁄4 forj.k 1⁄2]
m0 iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM dks bl
vk'k; ls fd os vius Lrj ls mDr vkns'k dh
izfr vf/kuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa@bdkbZ;ksa
dks miyC/k djk nsaA
41⁄2 leLr mi egkizcU/kd] m0 iz0
ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA
51⁄2 leLr vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] m0 iz0
ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA
61⁄2
egkizcU/kd]
ys[kk
,oe~
lEizs{kk]
m0
iz0
ikoj
dkjiksjs'ku
fyfeVsMA
71⁄2 mi egkizcU/kd] 1⁄4ys[kk1⁄2] m0
iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA
81⁄2
leLr
ojf"B
dkfeZd
vf/kdkjh@dkfeZd vf/kdkjh] m0 iz0 ikoj
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA
91⁄2 vuqlfpo] dkfeZd foRr uhfr] m0
iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA
101⁄2 dkjiksjs'ku 1⁄4eq01⁄2] 'kfDr
Hkou
ds
leLr
vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx@f'kfojA
111⁄2 dEiuh lfpo] m0 iz0 ikoj
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA
121⁄2
dV
Qkby@i=koyh
la[;k&8&,e@92 A
vkKk ls]
viBuh;
1⁄4v'kksd dqekj1⁄2
mi egkizcU/kd 1⁄4vkS0 la01⁄2 **
8 A plain reading of the aforesaid
office memo of U.P. Power Corporation
Limited shows that the sufferer shall be
entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as a measure of
immediate compensatory payment. Why
respondent
U.P.
Power
Corporation
Limited has failed to discharge its
statutory obligation is not borne out from
the record. Otherwise also, the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- is too meagre in the event
of death on account of electrocution.
Office memorandum (supra) grants
non-statutory immediate relief. Courts
may provide compensation in view of
actual damage caused, which may be
much higher than it (supra).
9 Rule 29 of the Indian Electricity
Rules, 1956 (supra), provides that all
electricity supply line and apparatus shall
contain sufficient safeguard and insulation
to check such incident. There appears to
be no room of doubt that in case
respondents would have taken necessary
steps in pursuance of statutory duty, then
incident would not have happened and
petitioner's husband aged about 26 years
of life, would not have suffered with
untimely death.
Thus, it appears that on account of
negligence on the part of U.P. Power
Corporation Limited, vis-a-vis respondent
No.6,
the
incident
occurred
and
petitioner's husband died because of
electrocution.
10
While submitting reply to the
present writ petition, it has been submitted by
the respondents that under Section 161 of
Indian Electricity Act, 2003, the Directorate
Electrical Supply has been assigned duty for
inquiry of such incident. According to report
of
the
Director,
Electricity
Safety,
Farrukhabad, 80 kilo volt ampier was given
to
the
Industrial
Training
Institute,
Farrukhabad campus by the Dakshinanchal
Vidyut
Vitran,
Limited
Fatehgarh,
Farrukhabad on low transmission line. It has
also been stated that the maintenance of
electricity after the energy meter was the sole
responsibility of Industrial Training Institute,
Farrukhabad. One Ram Naresh Instructor
Machine,
Industrial
Training
Institute,
Farrukhabad is allotted residential house in
the campus where he lives along with family
1286
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
members. At the relevant time, he was
posted at ITI, Allahabad. Being close friend
of Ram Naresh, Sri Amrendra Singh was
staying in his house. According to the report,
when Amrendra Singh was going to take
bath, he came into contact with broken cable
at the stairs of the bathroom. In consequence
thereof, he was electrocuted. A finding has
been recorded by the inquiry officer that the
electricity maintenance of the house was not
in accordance with Rules 29, 30 (4), 50 (1),
77 (3) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956.
A finding has been further recorded that it
was sheer negligence on the part of the
Principal, ITI, Farrukhabad with defective
installation of electricity line. The Director
Electrical Safety, submitted report on
30.9.2009 and also furnished a copy thereof
to the petitioner informing her to contact the
Principal ITI, Farrukhabad for payment of
compensation. Thus, the respondent No.5,
U.P. Power Corporation Limited avoided
responsibility to pay compensation in spite of
the fact that a finding has been recorded with
regard to negligence in maintenance of
power connection.
11 It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent U.P. Power
Corporation Limited that the Director,
Electrical
Safety
Farrukhabad
has
nowhere recorded finding that the U.P.
Power Corporation Limited is liable to
make payment of compensation. In view
of the above, the U.P. Power Corporation
Limited has set up a case that it shall not
be
liable
to
make
payment
of
compensation. The responsibility to pay
compensation in pursuance of report of
the Director Electrical Safety, has been
shifted on the Principal ITI who has also
disowned
the
liability
to
pay
compensation. In such a situation, a
question has cropped up as to who is
responsible to pay the compensation on
account of electrocution of petitioner's
husband.
12

The
statutory
provisions
discussed
hereinabove,
provides
to
maintain the electricity line or cables
strictly in accordance with Rules to avoid
any such incident.
13 Rule 29 (supra) casts a duty on
U.P. Power Corporation Limited also to
do needful with regard to installation,
protection and maintenance of electricity
supply line and apparatus. U.P. Power
Corporation Limited cannot shirk from
the statutory duty to ensure that the
electricity
lines
are
maintained
in
accordance with Rules and sufficient
safeguard.
14 Nothing has been brought on
record while filing counter affidavit that
the required inspection has been done in
accordance with rules by the officers of
the U.P. Power Corporation Limited to
check the maintenance of electricity line.
Being a connection of high voltage, it was
expected that the U.P. Power Corporation
Limited shall ensure that the consumer is
maintaining
the
electricity
line
in
accordance with Rules. It does not mean
that the consumer can disown the liability
with regard to maintenance of electricity
line within its own premises. Section 31
of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, also
casts duty on the consumer with regard to
maintenance of electricity line within its
own premises. For convenience, Section
31 (supra) is reproduced as under:
"31.
Cut-out
on
consumer's
premises.--(1) The supplier shall provide
a suitable cut-out in each conductor of
every service-line other than an earthed or
earthed neutral conductor or the earthed
3 All]. Neetu Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1287
external conductor of a concentric cable
within a consumer's premises, in an
accessible position. Such cut-out shall be
contained within an adequately enclosed
fireproof receptacle. Where more than one
consumer is supplied through a common
service-line, each such consumer shall be
provided with an independent cut-out at
the point of junction to the common
service.
(2) Every electric supply line other
than the earth or earthed neutral conductor
of any system or the earthed external
conductor of a concentric cable shall be
protected by a suitable cut-out by its
owner.
1[(3) * * * * *]
1. Sub-rule (3) omitted by GSR 358,
dt. 30.4.1987, w.e.f. 5.9.1987."
15 In the present case, it appears that
the
respondent
Industrial
Training
Institute
as
well
as
U.P.
Power
Corporation Limited, have failed to
discharge their statutory obligation with
regard to maintenance of electricity line.
The report submitted by the Director
Electrical Safety is the eye opener which
shows how the consumer and U.P. Power
Corporation
Limited
have
been
negligence in the discharge of their
statutory duty. While supplying electricity
line to the industrial consumers, it shall
always be obligatory on the part of the
Electricity Department to have a regular
check with regard to use of electricity line
by such industrial units. In case the the
U.P. Power Corporation Limited would
have
done
regular
inspection
of
respondent industrial unit, such incident
would not have occurred.
16 The husband of the petitioner had
visited his friend for personal reason and
stayed in the premises in question. It is not
only the consumer but whosoever visits the
consumer
and
suffers
from
such
incident/accident, shall be entitled for
payment of compensation in pursuance of
office memo of the U.P. Power Corporation
Limited (supra). Accordingly, we are of the
view that not only the U.P. Power
Corporation Limited but also the respondent
Industrial Training Institute shall be liable to
pay
compensation.
Both
are
jointly
responsible and seem to be negligent to
maintain electricity line. A person who had
gone to attend his friend in young age, had
suffered with the accident leaving behind
the petitioner widow, without any source of
livelihood, in such situation, it shall be
appropriate that the petitioner be awarded
some compensatory costs and the U.P.
Power Corporation Limited may also be
directed to pay compensation in accordance
with statutory Rules (supra) which shall be
in addition to the damages claimed by the
petitioner by filing a suit or approaching
other appropriate alike forum for payment
of compensation.
17 Death because of electrocution in
view of ill-maintenance of electricity line
by the respondents, is violative of Article
21 of the Constitution of India. In the
matter
involving
infringement
or
deprivation of fundamental right, this
Court has got ample power to award
compensation under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
In the present case, because of illmaintenance of electricity line as held in
the report of the Director, Electrical
Safety, the husband became victim of it.
Hence in such a situation, this Court may
direct for payment of compensation.
1288
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18 In the case reported in 2012 (9)
SCC
791:
Raghuvansh
Dewanchand
Bhasin Vs. State of Maharashtra, while
considering the ambit and scope of Article
21 and its violation, and court's right to
payment compensation, their lordships
held as under:-
17 It is trite principle of law that in
matters
involving
infringement
or
deprivation of a fundamental right; abuse
of process of law, harassment etc., the
courts have ample power to award
adequate compensation to an aggrieved
person not only to remedy the wrong done
to him but also to serve as a deterrent for
the wrongdoer.
18 In Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar,
Y.V. Chandrachud, CJ, speaking for a
Bench of three learned Judges of this
Court had observed thus: (SCC p. 147,
para 10)
"10. ...One of the telling ways in
which the violation of that right can
reasonably
be
prevented
and
due
compliance with the mandate of Article
21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the
payment
of
monetary
compensation.
Administrative
sclerosis
leading
to
flagrant infringements of fundamental
rights cannot be corrected by any other
method open to the judiciary to adopt."
19 In Bhim Singh, MLA Vs. State
of J & K, holding illegal detention in
police custody of the petitioner Bhim
Singh to be violative of his rights under
Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution,
this Court, in exercise of its power to
award compensation under Article 32,
directed the State to pay monetary
compensation to the petitioner. Relying
on Rudal Sah , O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.
echoed the following views: (SCC p.686,
para 2)
"2. ... When a person comes to us
with the complaint that he has been
arrested and imprisoned with mischievous
or
malicious
intent
and
that
his
constitutional and legal rights were
invaded, the mischief or malice and the
invasion may not be washed away or
wished away by his being set free. In
appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction
to compensate the victim by awarding
suitable monetary compensation..."
20. In Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias
Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa, clearing
the doubt and indicating the precise nature
of
the
constitutional
remedy
under
Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to
award compensation for contravention of
fundamental rights, which had arisen
because of the observation that "the
petitioner could have been relegated to the
ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to
compensation was factually controversial"
in Rudul Sah (SCC p. 147, para 10), J.S.
Verma, J. (as His Lordship then was)
stated as under: (Nilabati Behera case,
SCC pp. 762-63, para 17)
"17 It follows that 'a claim in public
law for compensation' for contravention
of
human
rights
and
fundamental
freedoms, the protection of which is
guaranteed in the Constitution, is an
acknowledged remedy for enforcement
and protection of such rights, and such a
claim based on strict liability made by
resorting to a constitutional remedy
provided
for the enforcement of a
fundamental right is 'distinct from, and in
addition to, the remedy in private law for
damages for the tort' resulting from the
contravention of the fundamental right.
3 All]. Neetu Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1289
The defence of sovereign immunity being
inapplicable, and alien to the concept of
guarantee of fundamental rights, there can
be no question of such a defence being
available in the constitutional remedy. It
is this principle which justifies award of
monetary compensation for contravention
of fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution, when that is the only
practicable mode of redress available for
the contravention made by the State or its
servants in the purported exercise of their
powers,
and
enforcement
of
the
fundamental right is claimed by resort to
the remedy in public law under the
Constitution by recourse to Articles 32
and 226 of the Constitution. This is what
was indicated in Rudul Sah and is the
basis of the subsequent decisions in which
compensation was awarded under Articles
32 and 226 of the Constitution, for
contravention of fundamental rights."
(emphasis supplied)
21. In the same decision, in his
concurring judgment, Dr. A.S. Anand, J.
(as His Lordship then was), explaining the
scope
and
purpose
of
public
law
proceedings and private law proceedings
stated as under: (Nilabati Behera case,
SCC pp. 768-69, para 34)
"34. The public law proceedings
serve a different purpose than the private
law proceedings. The relief of monetary
compensation, as exemplary damages, in
proceedings under Article 32 by this
Court or under Article 226 by the High
Courts, for established infringement of the
indefeasible
right
guaranteed
under
Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy
available in public law and is based on the
strict liability for contravention of the
guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights
of the citizen. The purpose of public law
is not only to civilize public power but
also to assure the citizen that they live
under a legal system which aims to protect
their interests and preserve their rights.
Therefore, when the court moulds the relief
by granting "compensation" in proceedings
under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution
seeking enforcement or protection of
fundamental rights, it does so under the
public law by way of penalising the
wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the
public wrong on the State which has failed
in its public duty to protect the fundamental
rights of the citizen. The payment of
compensation in such cases is not to be
understood, as it is generally understood in
a civil action for damages under the private
law but in the broader sense of providing
relief by an order of making 'monetary
amends' under the public law for the wrong
done due to breach of public duty, of not
protecting the fundamental rights of the
citizen. The compensation is in the nature of
'exemplary damages' awarded against the
wrongdoer for the breach of its public law
duty and is independent of the rights
available to the aggrieved party to claim
compensation under the private law in an
action based on tort, through a suit
instituted in a court of competent
jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender
under the penal law." (emphasis supplied)
22. The power and jurisdiction of
this Court and the High Courts to grant
monetary compensation in exercise of its
jurisdiction respectively under Articles 32
and 226 of the Constitution of India to a
victim whose fundamental rights under
Article 21of the Constitution are violated
are thus, well-established. However, the
question now is whether on facts in hand,
the appellant is entitled to monetary
compensation in addition to what has
1290
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
already been awarded to him by the High
Court. Having considered the case in the
light of the fact- situation stated above,
we are of the opinion that the appellant
does
not
deserve
further
monetary
compensation."
19 Accordingly, in view of above,
since in the present case, the petitioner's
husband suffered because of negligence
on the part of the respondents No.2, 5 and
6, and while staying with his own friend
petitioner's husband died on account of
electrocution at the young age of 26 years
leaving the petitioner widow, this Court
may grant compensation which shall be in
addition to the petitioner's right in
accordance
with
law
before
the
appropriate court or forum.
20 It shall be appropriate that the
respondent No.5 U.P. Power Corporation
Limited
Respondent
No.6
Principal,
Industrial
Training
Institute
(ITI),
Farrukhabad, who seems to be equally
responsible
for
ill-maintenance
of
electricity connection be directed to pay
compensation.
21 In such a situation, where a
young man of 26 years electrocuted
because of fault of respondent U.P. Power
Corporation
Limited
as
well
as
respondent
No.6,
appropriate
compensation may be awarded as a
measure of immediate relief to the widow
apart from the costs in view of the
judgment reported in (2005) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 344, Salem Advocate Bar
Association (II), Vs. Union of India. We
assess the compensation to the tune of
Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) which shall be
paid
by
respondent
U.P.
Power
Corporation
Limited,
as
well
as
respondent No.6 equally (five lakh each).
We further assess the costs to both of
them to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, one lakh
each ( total rupees two lakhs). The
compensation paid in pursuance of the
present judgment, shall be in addition to
whatever is being paid to the petitioner
widow of the deceased husband by other
forum in a civil suit or other statutory
authority.
We
feel
that
amount
of
Rs.12,00,000/- (twelve lakhs) shall not
compensate the vacuum created in the life
of widow but it shall be a solace to her to
prepare a future plan of life and deterrent to
wrong doers.
22 Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. A writ in the nature of
mandamus
is
issued
directing
the
respondent No.2 and 5, and respondent
No.6 to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
each (total rupees ten lakhs). The costs is
assessed to Rs.1,00,000/- each payable by
respondent No.2 and 5, and respondent
No.6 (total rupees two lakhs).
Let the amount of Rs.12,00,000/-
(total rupees twelve lakhs) be deposited
by the respondent No.2 and 5 and
respondent No.6 equally within two
months in this Court to which the
petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw. In
the event of failure on the part of the
respondent No.2 and 5 and respondent
No.6 to deposit the aforesaid amount, the
District Magistrate, Lucknow as well as
District Farrukhabad shall recover the
same from the respondent No.2 and 5 and
respondent No.6, as arrears of land
revenue and remit it to this Court which
the
petitioner
shall
be
entitled
to
withdraw. Registry of this Court to take
follow up action.
The
writ
petition
is
allowed
accordingly. The compensation paid in
3 All]. Akhilesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1291
pursuance of the present judgment, shall
be in addition to compensation claimed by
the petitioner in suit before appropriate
court, authority or forum.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27946 of 2013
Akhilesh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Q.H. Siddiqui
U.P. Recruitments of Dependents of
Government Servant (Dying in Harness)
Rules 1974-Rule-2 (c)(v)-word "Family"
whether of includes brother-after death
of unmarried brother where father alive
but living separately with second wife
after death of mother of petitioner-held-
'Yes' in view of full Bench decision of
Sheo Kumar Dubey.
Held: Para-14
Therefore, in my opinion the "family" of
late Manoj Kumar is to be seen for the
purpose of Dying in Harness Rule, 1974
and not that of Sri Chhote Lal, father of the
petitioner who got remarried as back as in
the year 1998 and was living with Radhika
Devi and three daughters born out of
second marriage and was not maintaining
the petitioner and his brothers including
deceased Manoj Kumar. As such for all
purposes under the provisions of Dying in
Harness Rule 1974 his family became
different family as contemplated in the
aforesaid
Rules
1974
and
to
hold
otherwise would defeat the purpose of the
said Rules.
(B)U.P. Recruitment of dependents of
Government Servant (Dying in Harness)
Rules
1974-Rule-5-Compassionate
appointment-petitioner being brother of
unmarried
deceased
employee-fully
dependent-having no source of incomeapplying golden Rule of interpretationentitled for compassionate appointmenteven the father being working ------------
still alive-but living separately with second
wife and her children-order quashed
consequential direction given.
Held: Para-20
In the present as already held that the
petitioner has included in the family of
late Manoj Kumar as defined under Rule
2 (c) (iv) of the Dying in Harness Rule
1974, as such the petitioner who is
brother of the deceased and is not in
service is entitled for appointment on
compassionate
ground
provided
he
maintains other family members of the
deceased namely his younger brother
Amit Kumar, who is also living with him
and was also dependent of late Manoj
Kumar.
Admittedly,
deceased
Manoj
Kumar was unmarried as such the
question of spouse being being in service
does not arise. It is also undisputed fact
that the petitioner Akhilesh Kumar is not
in service of Central Govt. or State Govt.
or in any Corporation as mentioned in
Rule 5 of the Act.
Case Law discussed:
2014 (123) RD 504 (FB);2014 (2) (ADJ) 312
(FB).
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents.
2. Facts of the case are that late
Manoj Kumar, the brother of the
petitioner,
was
working
as
Junior
Engineer (Civil) in Jal Nigam, who