Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking compensation of ₹2 lakhs for the electrocution death of a buffalo allegedly due to negligence by South Bihar Power Holding Company. The Court held that the matter is squarely covered by its earlier decision in CWJC No. 8470 of 2022 and granted liberty to the petitioner to seek compensation before the appropriate civil court, directing that the case be decided expeditiously.
“The present writ petition stands disposed of… with liberty to the petitioner to seek necessary compensation by approaching the concerned Civil Court…”
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that his buffalo had died due to electrocution caused by the negligence of the electricity distribution agency under the South Bihar Power Holding Company. He sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to compensate him with ₹2 lakhs and also prayed for directions to act upon the representation already made by him to the authorities.
At the outset, the respondents submitted that the case is squarely covered by the Patna High Court’s earlier order in CWJC No. 8470 of 2022, which itself was decided in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Ors. v. Sukamani Das & Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 298.
Issues
- Whether a writ petition is the appropriate remedy for claiming compensation for electrocution of an animal?
- Whether the High Court can direct compensation for loss allegedly caused due to the negligence of a government agency?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the death of his buffalo was due to the fault of the South Bihar Power Holding Company. He sought compensation of ₹2 lakhs and submitted that he had already made a representation to the concerned authorities, which had not been acted upon. The petitioner relied on the principle of public accountability for administrative negligence.
Upon being made aware of the legal position, the petitioner’s counsel sought liberty to approach the appropriate forum for compensation.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued that this matter is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and is fully covered by the Court’s earlier order in CWJC No. 8470 of 2022. They submitted that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available in the form of a civil suit. They relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sukamani Das to assert that such claims must be adjudicated upon by civil courts and not through writ petitions.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted that the question of compensatory liability arising from electrocution due to negligence of electricity departments had been settled in the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Sukamani Das, where it was held that the proper remedy for such claims lies in civil suits. The Supreme Court had clearly stated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in such circumstances and that factual adjudication was necessary.
The Court followed this binding precedent and its own decision in CWJC No. 8470 of 2022, holding that writ courts should not decide compensation claims involving disputed facts or tortious liability.
Precedent Analysis
- Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Ors. v. Sukamani Das & Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 298: The Supreme Court ruled that writ petitions are not the appropriate remedy for claims of compensation arising from alleged negligence by electricity companies. Such matters involve disputed facts and require civil court adjudication.
- CWJC No. 8470 of 2022 (Patna High Court): Relied upon by the respondents and adopted by the Court in the present case to dispose of the petition on similar lines, granting liberty to approach the civil court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court acknowledged that the present case raised similar legal and factual questions as in CWJC No. 8470 of 2022. Since compensation involved evaluation of evidence and consideration of negligence, the Court held that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts and not writ courts.
Considering the petitioner’s request, the Court granted liberty to file a civil suit for compensation and directed that any such suit be disposed of expeditiously.
Conclusion
The writ petition was disposed of, with the petitioner granted liberty to approach the civil court for compensation. The Court made it clear that civil courts are the appropriate forums to adjudicate such claims involving damages and negligence.
Implications
This ruling reiterates the judicial principle that tortious claims for compensation arising from electrocution or similar accidents must be pursued through civil suits. It discourages invoking writ jurisdiction for claims involving disputed questions of fact and reinforces the authority of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Sukamani Das.
FAQs
1. Can compensation for electrocution of livestock be claimed through a writ petition?
No, the Court has held that such claims involve disputed facts and should be adjudicated through civil suits, not writ petitions.
2. What did the Supreme Court rule in Sukamani Das’s case?
The Supreme Court ruled that writ jurisdiction should not be used to claim compensation for negligence by power authorities; instead, civil suits are the proper remedy.
3. What is the remedy available to the petitioner now?
The petitioner has been granted liberty to file a civil suit before the appropriate forum to claim compensation for the alleged electrocution of his buffalo.
Case Reference Summary
- Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das: Held that writ courts should not grant compensation in cases requiring factual adjudication.
- CWJC No. 8470 of 2022 (Patna HC): Applied Sukamani Das and dismissed the writ petition with liberty to approach civil court—basis for the present judgment’s conclusion.
