Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur Represented By The … vs Shri Moirangthem Indrakumar Singh on 9 April, 2025
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
1
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.04.30
08:09:06 +05'30'
Item No. 64-67(DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WA No.36 of 2024
The State of Manipur represented by the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary(Power), Government of
Manipur, Imphal & Anr.
Appellants
-Vs.
Shri Moirangthem Indrakumar Singh, aged about 36 years,
S/o M. Uttam Singh of Leimaram Awang Leikai, Bishnupur,
Manipur.
Respondent
With
WA No.16 of 2024
With
MC(WA)No.36 of 2024
With
MC(WA)No.70 of 2024
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
(Oral)
09.04.2025
D. Krishnakumar, C.J. :
[1] Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Senior GA for the appellants and Mr.
S. Abung, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
[2] The instant writ appeal in WA No.36 of 2024 has been filed
against the judgment & order dated 03.05.2018 passed in WP(C)No.365 of
22017 and WA No.16 of 2024 has been filed against the judgement & order
dated 25.04.2023 passed in Review petition No.12 of 2022.
[3] According to the appellants, the respondent herein has filed writ
petition in WP(C)No.365 of 2017 for payment of Rs. 30,00,000/-(Rupees thirty
Lakhs) as compensation due to electrocution and as a result of which he has
suffered 70% disability leading to amputation of his right arm due to the
aforesaid electrocution.
[4] According to the respondent/writ petitioner, after having
completed his diploma and degree courses in Electrical Engineering, joined
his service as an engineer in various reputed companies. At the relevant time
when the incident took place, he was serving as an Engineer in the Linequest
Telecom Ltd. vide order dated 10.11.2014 issued by it with a pay of Rs.
24,000/-(Rupees twenty four thousand) per month which was to be increased
from time to time. The respondent/writ petitioner stated that when he was on
duty at State Bank of India, Tuibong Churachandpur for installation of a
Monopole, attached ODU to it, on the roof top of the SBI building which was
to be connected with one IDU in the server room of the bank. While the
respondent/writ petitioner has undertaken the aforesaid work in the roof top,
he got electric shock from the HT power line on his neck and fell down on the
ground unconsciously and he was taken for treatment at Raj Medicity, Imphal
on 14.06.2016 and subsequently, he was taken to the Down Town Hospital at
Guwahati on 02.07.2016 for further treatment where his right arm below the
ankle was amputated in order to save his life. According to the respondent
herein, further states that due to the aforesaid electrocution and amputation
3
of his right arm, he has lost his job and he could not get any job in any other
departments or in private companies. Therefore, he has filed the writ petition
for payment of compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/-(Rupees thirty Lakhs).
[5] The appellants have not filed counter affidavit in the writ petition
but filed written argument and therefore, the writ court has considered the
written argument filed by the appellant herein by holding that the appellants
have not seriously disputed the negligence as alleged by the respondent/writ
petitioner. Thus, the writ court has come to the conclusion that in view of the
failure of filing the counter affidavit before the writ court as well as negligence
on the part of the appellants herein, the writ court has passed the order for
payment of compensation to the respondent herein.
[6] Though the appellants have raised the question of maintainability
of the writ petition before the writ court but the writ court rejected the claim of
the appellant/respondent by relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & ors Vs. Smt.
Sukamani Das(1999), 7 SCC 298 and also other decisions reported in SDO,
Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Timudu Oram,(2005) 6 SCC 156
discussed that regarding the disputed facts, that will go only before the
appropriate civil court seeking for compensation. However, the writ court has
considered on the facts of this case that when the respondents/appellants
have not seriously disputed the fact of negligence and therefore, the writ court
has considered it appropriate for passing an order for compensation to the
respondent herein by relying upon the various decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera(Smt) Alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa
4
& ors, (1993) 2 SCC 746; M.C. Mehta & anr. Vs. Union of India & ors.,(1987)
1 SCC 395 & MP Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari & ors.(2002) etc.
[7] According to the appellants, the Government has passed an
order stating that an ex-gratia amount is to be a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(two
lakh) only and therefore, any other point is concerned, writ petition is not
maintainable and the remedy is only before the civil court. The learned counsel
appearing for the respondent has strongly objected the said contention of the
appellants.
[8] Further, according to the respondent, the appellants have not
filed any counter affidavit before the writ court and accepted the averments of
the respondent/writ petitioner that the negligence on the part of the appellants
department, the writ court has come to the said conclusion and now the
appellants cannot take the stand that the said writ petition is not maintainable
for payment of compensation to the respondent herein as he has already
suffered 70% disability due to the aforesaid electrocution and therefore he
seeks for dismissal of the present writ appeal.
[9] We have heard the arguments of the parties and perused the
material available on record.
[10] Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Sr. Government Advocate has
submitted that the appeal has been filed by raising the grounds that the writ
petition filed by the respondent herein is not maintainable that the disputed
fact is to be decided before the appropriate forum/civil court and the writ court
without considering the objection of the appellants and allowing the writ
petition which is unsustainable in law. Further, the compensation has been
5
paid to the respondent herein and on this aspect, the aforesaid appeal has
been preferred by the appellants before this Court. According to them, the
negligence is on the part of the respondent/writ petitioner where he has
climbed on the roof top of the SBI building and undertaken the work for the
aforesaid of the privately owned telecommunication company and therefore,
the order of the writ court is liable to be set aside.
[11] Ms. S. Abung, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
submitted that the appellants have not filed counter affidavit before the writ
court making objection of such maintainability on the ground of negligence on
the part of the respondent herein. When the appellant department has not
disputed the said facts, the writ court has also come to a right conclusion that
the negligence has not been seriously disputed by the appellant department.
On this circumstances, we are of the view that when the appellant department
has misused the opportunity of filing counter affidavit before the writ court by
disputing the aforesaid negligence and therefore, we cannot interfere with the
findings of the learned Single Judge.
[12] According to the appellants, the payment of compensation of Rs.
10(ten) lakhs is excessive without any basis. He also stated that while the writ
appeal is pending before this Court, contempt petition has been filed by the
respondent herein and in compliance of the said contempt petition, the
appellants have deposited 10(ten) lakhs before the Registry and the said
amount has been withdrawn by the respondent herein.
[13] Considering the facts that the appellants have admitted that
there is negligence on their part and further considering the fact that the
6
respondent herein is an Engineer in the Linequest Telecom Ltd. with a mere
pay of Rs.24,000/- per month and his future is also ruined due to the aforesaid
electrocution. On this aspect we have not strictly gone into to the case of Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr for calculating matter for
awarding compensation amount but taking into consideration that reasonable
amount has been paid to the respondent herein for the aforesaid electrocution
and treatment also taken at Imphal as well as at Guwahati. The relevant
documents regarding the medical expenses are also placed before the writ
court. This aspect was carefully taken into consideration by the writ court and
awarded the compensation amount to the respondent herein. We are of the
view that since the compensation amount awarded by the writ court has
already been withdrawn by the respondent herein and at this juncture, we are
not inclined to interfere with the order of the writ court.
[14] In view of the above, the instant writ appeals are dismissed and
consequently, misc. cases are also closed. It is made clear that the order of
writ court and the instant writ appeal will not be cited as precedent in future.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom