High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/19674/2017dismissed

Dhbvn v. The Permanant Lok Adalat And ANR

2017-08-31Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

Vinod Kumar 2017.09.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.19674 of 2017 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.19674 of 2017 Date of decision:31.08.2017 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.

...Petitioner

Versus

The Permanent Lok Adalat and another

...Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioner has challenged the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bhiwani, Camp Court at Jind, dated 13.01.2017, by which application filed by respondent no.2 for seeking compensation on account of death of her son Joginder Singh due to electrocution has been allowed.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in DDR No.6 dated 17.10.2014, one Narender S/o Surender, son of real uncle of the deceased, had stated that the body of the deceased came into contact with the electricity transformer in the darkness and due to electrocution, he died at the spot but the accident occurred all of a sudden and there is no fault of anybody. It is, thus, sought to be argued that respondent no.2 has wrongly been awarded compensation by respondent no.1.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the available record from which it is found that there is no error in the impugned order because it is proved from the post mortem report that the death of

CWP No.19674 of 2017 [ 2 ] ***** Joginder Singh had occurred due to electrocution. The DDR was also lodged immediately in which the cause of death has also been mentioned due to electrocution because of contact with transformer. If the person, who has lodged the DDR, got recorded that there is no fault of anybody, it does not mean that the department was not at fault because the case of the petitioner is that the transformer was not insulated and as a result thereof, the deceased came into contract with the transformer and died at the spot. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not have any case for the purpose of interference by this Court and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

August 31, 2017 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No