Relief unpaid to electrocution victim, dept property attached
Taking strict note of the failure of the UT electricity department to pay compensation to the family of a 17-year-old boy who died of electrocution in December 2006, judicial magistrate Amareshwar Singh on Tuesday attached with the case the property of secretary, electricity, UT.Updated: Dec 25, 2013 12:39 IST
Taking strict note of the failure of the UT electricity department to pay compensation to the family of a 17-year-old boy who died of electrocution in December 2006, judicial magistrate Amareshwar Singh on Tuesday attached with the case the property of secretary, electricity, UT, and the department's operations sub-division number 6.
It was in August that the court had directed the administration to pay Rs 3.65 lakh to parents of Class-12 student Lalit Ram, a resident of Sector 46. In the petition, Lalit's father Ram Kumar had said that he and his son were on their way to Sector 45 on December 10, 2006, when Lalit, while trying to avoid slipping on the wet road, took support of an electricity pole and died of the power shock.
Ram Kumar also alleged that the electricity department had wrongly erected the pole for a temporary connection to a liqour vend in Sector 46.
The court, in an order on August 27 this year, directed the secretary, electricity, and the operations sub-division 6 to pay 9% interest on the compensation amount from April 2007, when the case was filed.
Further, the kin were entitled to 6% interest on the compensation amount from August 27 till the date of actual payment.
After the order to attach property, on February 8 the complainant's counsels, Thakur Kartar Singh and Vishal Thakur, would file a list of properties that would be attached.
Attachment of property effectively means that if the relief is not paid, the property could be auctioned to realise the amount.
Contesting the petition for compensation, the electricity department had denied any liability saying that as per the clauses of providing connections, the liability was of the consumer, which was the liquor vend in this case. But the contention was not accepted.
First Published: Dec 25, 2013 12:35 IST