http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SMT.  SHAKUNTALA DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/01/1995

BENCH: MAJMUDAR S.B. (J) BENCH: MAJMUDAR S.B. (J) MOHAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (2) 369        JT 1995 (1)   547  1995 SCALE  (1)318

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.: 1.   This is a petition by the widow of deceased Ram  Naresh Yadav under Article 32 of the Constitution of India  against Delhi   Electric   Supply   Undertaking,   Life    Insurance Corporation of India and M/s Fixwell Push-in-cords Pvt.Ltd., praying  for appropriate directions against the  respondents to  award  to the petitioner suitable compensation  of  Rs.5 lakhs on account of the death of her husband which according to  her  was caused by criminal negligence on  the  part  of Respondent No. 1. 2.   This  is an unfortunate case in which a young and  sole bread-winner of the petitioner’s family was lost on  account of a tragic accident in which he got electrocuted by a  live wire of electricity which was being supplied at the spot  by Respondent  No. 1, undertaking.  That left the petitioner  a young  widow  and three small children  destitutes.   A  few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted  at this  stage.   The deceased husband of  the  petitioner  got employment  as  gardener in the organisation  of  Respondent No.3 which is situated at village, Dhundehara.  The  husband of  the petitioner was staying at village Kapashera  on  the outskirts of New Delhi.  The wife of the deceased  alongwith her  three children, namely, Anil Kumar (son) aged about  18 years,  Anita  Kumari  (daughter) aged about  16  years  and Sunita  Kumari (daughter) aged about 9 years was staying  in their village Atepur. The deceased was the only earning mem- ber in their family and was maintaining them. 3.   The petitioner’s husband got a policy of life insurance for an amount of Rs.25,000 and his life was insured  against accidental death by Respondent No.2 Corporation.   According to  the  petitioner  her husband was  regularly  paying  the insurance premia. 4.   On  8th  July, 1993 a live  main  electricitycable/wire which resting on a electricitypole at village Kapashera  had got  snapped and was lying in the rainy water logged in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

village.   Various complaints were made by the residents  of the village Kapashera to the officers of the Respondent  No. 1   which  was  statutorily  bound  to   maintain   electric installation  lines in proper condition.  Local  police  was also  informed  regarding  the disconnection  of  live  wire resulting  into  leakage of electricity and  threat  to  the lives of the people in their area. 5.   According to the petitioner all these requests fell  on deaf ears of Respondent No. 1 which did not take any  action in  this regard.  In the evening when Ram Naresh  Yadav  was returning  from  the place of employment, when  he  was  not aware  of the electricity leakage, he came in  contact  with the live cable and got electrocuted on the spot And he  died instantaneously.   This according to the petitioner  was  on account of criminal negligence on the part of Respondent No. 1.  As this disaster has left the petitioner and  her  young children  destitutes,  the present petition is  moved  under Article  32  of  the Constitution  presumably  relying  upon petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Con- stitution which have got adversely affected 549 on  account  of  the  negligent  act  of  the  officials  of Respondent  No. 1 herein.  She has also claimed  appropriate reliefs from Respondent No. 2. This petition was treated  to have  been  admitted to final hearing.  We  have  heard  the learned  Advocates  for  the parties  in  support  of  their respective  cases.  Having heard them we felt that it  is  a fit  case for invoking our jurisdiction power under  Article 142  of  the Constitution of India  for  giving  appropriate relief to the petitioner, a destitute widow of the  deceased and her young/minor children.  So far as Respondent No. 1 is concerned it is true that the question of negligence of  of- ficials  of Respondent No. 1 can be properly examined  in  a suit  where  correct facts can be established  but  as  that would  involve long delay and the misery of  the  petitioner and  her  young  children who were stranded  in  life  would linger  on we suggest to the learned counsel for  Respondent No.  1  to  give  a  reasonable  amount  ex  gratia  to  the petitioner  and her young children so that their misery  can be  to some extent lessened.  We are happy to note that  the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 on instruction has left the  matter  to us. Similarly the learned  counsel  for  Re- spondent  No.  2,  Sh.  Negi has also  gracefully  left  the matter  to us.  He however, submitted that if the  insurance policy  was a live policy, Respondent No. 2 would have  been liable  to  make  full  insured amount  of  Rs.  25,000  but according  to Respondent No. 2 Corporation, the  policy  has lapsed as the deceased has not paid premia for the last  few instalments.  He further frankly stated that Respondent  No. 2  is  not in a position to point out  whether  any  written intimation  was given to the deceased about  non-payment  of premia  and the possible lapsing of policy.  He also  stated that  though  there  was no statutory  rule  requiring  such intimation  to  be  given to the insured,  as  a  matter  of practice  the  Corporation  used to issue  such  notices  or intimations to the concerned insured so that they can  clear of the unpaid premia instalments, But in the present case he was  not in a position to produce a copy of any such  notice issued  to  the  deceased.  So far as  learned  counsel  for Respondent  No. 3 ex-employer of the deceased is  concerned, he  stated that whatever was due to the deceased  under  the Workmen   Compensation  Act  and  as  per  the   rules   and regulations of the institution has already been paid to  the petitioner.  However, he fairly stated that he will have  no objection   in  giving  compassionate  appointment  to   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

petitioner’s son, Anil Kumar who is now a major if he  makes an  appropriate  application  in  this  connection  to   the Respondent  No. 3. The Respondent No. 3 will see to it  that such  employment  on compassionate ground is  given  to  the petitioner’s son Anil Kumar according to his suitability and educational qualifications and appropriate job will be given to  him  latest within six months from today.   Under  these circumstances  interest  of justice will be  served  by  our directing Respondent No. 1 to pay an ex gratia amount of Rs. 75,000/-  to the petitioner for the benefit of her self  and her  children  Anil  Kumar  aged  18  years  and  two  minor daughters  Anita  Kumari and Sunita Kumari.   Similarly,  we direct  Respondent No. 2, Life Insurance Corporation to  pay ex gratia amount of Rs. 25,000/- which would cover the  full amount  of  life insurance policy of  the  deceased  without going into the wider question whether the policy had  lapsed or not on account of non-payment of premia.  We also  direct Respondent  No. 3 to give compassionate employment  suitable to  the qualification of petitioner’s son Anil  Kumar.   For that pur- 550 pose, Anil Kumar shall make an application to Respondent No. 3 at the earliest and on receipt of the said application Re- spondent  No. 3 will give suitable employment to him at  the earliest  but  not later than six months from  the  date  on which such application is received by Respondent No. 3.  The disbursement of the above said total amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh to  the  petitioner and her young children will be  made  as under:- Respondent  No. 2 shall directly pay to the  petitioner  Rs. 25,000/-  by  bank  draft drawn in her favour.   So  far  as Respondent No. 1 is concerned it shall deposit Rs.  75,000/- in this Court out of which Rs. 25,000/- will be deposited in fixed deposit by the Registrar General of this Court in  the name  of  the  petitioner for a period of 10  years  in  any nationalised  bank  and the remaining Rs. 50,000/-  will  be invested  in  fixed deposits in the name  of  the  concerned minor through her guardian, the petitioner till they  attain majority.   Rs.25,000/  -  out of the  said  amount  of  Rs. 50,000/will  be deposited in the name of minor  child  Anita Kumari,  while the remaining Rs. 25,000/- will be  deposited in  the name  minor child Sunita Kumari both  through  their guardian, petitioner.  Out of the invested amounts  interest accruing due shall be made payable to the petitioner as well as  her minor children at the end of each quarter for  their maintenance.   The aforesaid amount shall be  paid/deposited by  the concerned respondents within a period of four  weeks from today.  Subject to these directions to the  respondents this  petition is disposed of This judgment is  rendered  on the peculiar facts of this case and will not be treated as a precedent in any other matter.  There will be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. 551