CHAIRMAN, GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. (GRIDCO) AND ORS. versus SMT. SUKAMANI DAS AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 15-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
CHAIRMAN, GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. (GRIDCO) 
AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. SUKAMANI DAS AND ANR. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 
[G.T. NANAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Death due to electrocution-
Snapped electric wires of electric transmission owned by Corporation lying 
C on the ground-Deceased while walking along the road, coming into contact 
with the snapped wire, causing death-Compensation claim by widow of 
deceased against corporation-Denial of liability by Corporation on the 
ground that death has not occurred due to their negligence but because of 
thunderbolt and lightening-High Court allowed the claim and awarded 
compensation-On appeal, held where disputed question of facts involved, 
D writ petition under Article 226 not proper remedy-Mere ownership of electric 
transmission line by Corporation not sufficient for awarding compensation-
Actions in tort and negligence required to be established by claimants jirst-
Corporation not granted opportunity to prove that proper care and 
precautions were taken by them-High Court erred in entertaining the writ 
E petition in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the ConstitUtion. 
On a rainy day P while wal"-ing along the road came in contact with 
an electric wire lying across the road and died due to electrocution. The 
widow of the deceased filed a writ petition against the appellant - Corporation 
claiming compensation on the ground that the electric wire had snapped 
p 
because of the negligence of the Corporation. However, the appellant -
Corporation denied their liability on the ground that death has not occurred 
as a result of their negligence but because of the act of God. The wire had 
snapped because of thunderbolt and lightening and immediately on getting 
information the power was disconnected. The High Court while allowing the 
writ petition awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. Aggrieved the appellant-
G Corporation has filed the present appeal. 
The contention of the appellant - Corporation was that it was highly 
improper on the part ()f the High Court to have entertained the writ petitions 
in view of the specific defences raised by them and to arrive at the conclusion 
of negligence on the basis of the scanty material placed before the High 
H 
~8 
... 
CHAIRMAN, GRID CORP. OF ORISSA v. SUKAMANI DAS 
459 
Court by the respondent-claimants and which was not subjected to cross A 
examination; that apart from establishing that the deaths had occurred because 
of electrocution it was also required to be established by the respondent-
claimants under what circumstance electrocution had taken place and that 
the deaths had taken place not because of any negligence of the deceased. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court committed an error in entertaining the 
writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under 
Article 226 of the Constitution. It is the settled legal position that where 
disputed question of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the 
Constitution is not a proper remedy. [463-B-E] 
C 
1.2. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the 
deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased 
coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission 
lines of the appellants that "admittedly primafacie amounted to negligence D 
on the part of the appellants". The High Court failed to appreciate that all 
these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established 
firstly by the claimants. Mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission 
line belonging to appellant No. 1 had snapped and the deceased had come into 
contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding 
compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped E 
as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances 
the deceased had come into contact with the wire. In view of the specific 
defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an 
opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in 
maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because 
of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third F 
parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the 
petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the 
basis of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.