2005 (7) TMI 665 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of High Court's exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to award compensation.
2. Determination of negligence and liability for electrocution deaths.
3. Maintainability of writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact.
4. Applicability of previous Supreme Court judgments on similar issues.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of High Court's Exercise of Power Under Article 226:
The primary question in these appeals was whether the High Court was justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to award compensation to the respondents. The appellants contended that the deaths were not due to their negligence but due to the respondents' negligence, an act of God, or actions by third parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed an error in entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 for cases involving disputed facts and tort actions. The Court emphasized that negligence must be established by the claimants and that such matters should typically be resolved in civil courts, not through writ petitions.

2. Determination of Negligence and Liability:
In Civil Appeal No. 1726 of 1999, the facts revealed that unauthorized power connections taken by villagers led to the electrocution deaths. The appellants argued that the deaths were due to the negligence of the deceased and unauthorized connections. The High Court had directed the appellants to pay compensation, which the Supreme Court found erroneous without a proper finding of negligence. Similarly, in Civil Appeal No. 9788 of 1998, the deceased was electrocuted due to a snapped conductor during a storm. The High Court awarded compensation despite a previous suit dismissal, which the Supreme Court found unjustified. In Civil Appeal No. 5591 of 1999, the deceased was electrocuted by a snapped live wire, and the High Court awarded compensation despite the appellants' denial of negligence. The Supreme Court reiterated that negligence must be proven, and the High Court's findings were insufficient.

3. Maintainability of Writ Petitions Involving Disputed Questions of Fact:
The Supreme Court emphasized that writ petitions under Article 226 are not suitable for cases involving disputed questions of fact. The Court referred to its previous judgment in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others Vs. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and another, which held that such matters should be resolved in civil courts. The Court noted that the High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach civil courts, as disputed facts cannot be adequately resolved through affidavits in writ jurisdiction.

4. Applicability of Previous Supreme Court Judgments:
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions, including Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others Vs. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and another, and W.B. State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Sachin Banerjee & Ors., which held that negligence must be established, and writ petitions are not appropriate for disputed fact cases. The Court distinguished the case cited by the respondent, M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari & Ors., where negligence was established in a civil suit, making it inapplicable to the present cases. The Court also referred to H.S.E.B. and others Vs. Ram Nath and others, where compensation was awarded due to uncontroverted facts, unlike the present cases with disputed facts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in exercising its power under Article 226 without properly appreciating its jurisdiction. The impugned judgments were set aside, but the appellants were not to recover amounts already paid to the respondents. The civil appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.