Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by a widow seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the deceased's former employer for the death of her husband due to electrocution. The petitioner alleged that her husband, the sole breadwinner, died after coming into contact with a snapped live electricity wire that had been lying in waterlogged village Kapashera on 8 July 1993. Despite complaints to the electricity undertaking and local police, no action was taken. The deceased had a life insurance policy of Rs.25,000 with LIC, and the petitioner claimed premia were regularly paid. The employer had already paid amounts due under the Workmen Compensation Act. The petition relied on Article 21 and sought compensation for criminal negligence of the electricity undertaking. The Court admitted the petition to final hearing. After hearing counsel, the Court opined that while negligence could be examined in a civil suit, the long delay and the family's destitution made it fit to invoke powers under Article 142 to grant appropriate relief. The counsel for the electricity undertaking left the matter to the Court. The counsel for LIC submitted that the policy had lapsed due to non-payment of last few instalments, but could not produce any written intimation of lapse; he stated that as a matter of practice LIC used to issue such notices. The counsel for the employer stated dues under the Workmen Compensation Act had been paid and expressed no objection to compassionate appointment for the deceased's son, Anil Kumar. The Court directed Respondent No.1 to pay Rs.75,000 ex gratia; Respondent No.2 to pay Rs.25,000 ex gratia covering the full policy amount without deciding lapse; and Respondent No.3 to give compassionate employment to Anil Kumar within six months of his application. The disbursement plan included direct payment of Rs.25,000 by LIC to the petitioner, deposit of Rs.75,000 by Respondent No.1 in the Court, with Rs.25,000 placed in a fixed deposit in the petitioner's name for ten years and Rs.50,000 in fixed deposits for the two minor daughters through their guardian until majority, with quarterly interest for maintenance. The amounts were to be paid or deposited within four weeks. The judgment stated it was rendered on peculiar facts and would not be treated as a precedent. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Compensation under Article 32/21 - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 32,21,142 - The petitioner, a destitute widow, filed a writ petition under Article 32 alleging violation of Article 21 due to electrocution death of her husband caused by negligence of Respondent No.1. The Court held that while negligence could be examined in a civil suit, the delay and misery warranted invocation of Article 142 to grant appropriate relief on the peculiar facts. Held that the Court invoked Article 142 to direct ex gratia compensation and compassionate employment (Paras 1-5). B) Tort Law - Negligence of Electricity Supplier - Ex Gratia Compensation - No specific Act cited - The deceased came in contact with a snapped live electricity wire after complaints to Respondent No.1 were ignored. Though the Court did not determine negligence, it directed Respondent No.1 to pay Rs.75,000 ex gratia to the petitioner and her children, considering the destitution and long delay of a suit. Held that ex gratia compensation was ordered without deciding negligence (Paras 4-5). C) Insurance Law - Lapse of Life Insurance Policy - Ex Gratia Payment - No specific Act cited - Respondent No.2 contended that the life insurance policy of Rs.25,000 had lapsed due to non-payment of premia, but could not produce any written intimation of lapse. The Court directed Respondent No.2 to pay Rs.25,000 ex gratia, covering the full insured amount, without deciding whether the policy had lapsed. Held that ex gratia payment was ordered despite policy lapse contention (Para 5). D) Labour Law - Compassionate Appointment - Post-Death Benefits - Workmen Compensation Act - Respondent No.3 stated that dues under the Workmen Compensation Act had been paid and had no objection to compassionate appointment of the deceased's son. The Court directed Respondent No.3 to give suitable employment to the son within six months of receiving his application. Held that compassionate appointment was ordered as part of final relief (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India could be used to grant compensation and other reliefs to the widow and children of a person who died due to electrocution from a snapped live electricity wire, without relegating them to a civil suit for negligence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed Respondent No.1 to pay ex gratia Rs.75,000 for the benefit of the petitioner and her children; Respondent No.2 to pay ex gratia Rs.25,000 covering the full life insurance policy without deciding whether the policy had lapsed; and Respondent No.3 to give compassionate employment suitable to the qualification of petitioner's son Anil Kumar within six months of his application. Respondent No.2 was to directly pay Rs.25,000 by bank draft to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 was to deposit Rs.75,000 in the Court, with Rs.25,000 to be placed in fixed deposit in the petitioner's name for 10 years, and Rs.50,000 in fixed deposits for the two minor daughters through their guardian until majority, with quarterly interest payable for maintenance. Amounts were to be paid or deposited within four weeks. The judgment was rendered on peculiar facts and would not be treated as a precedent. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Article 32 of Constitution of India
- Article 21 of Constitution of India
- Article 142 of Constitution of India
- ex gratia compensation
- compassionate appointment
- no determination of negligence
- peculiar facts
- not a precedent
