1 2026:CGHC:27105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3358 of 2026 1 - Mahesh Kumar Gajendra S/o Baishakhuram Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Nagar Panchayat Arjunda, Tahsil Arjunda District Balod (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Collector Balod District- Balod (C.G.). 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Balod District- Balod (C.G.). 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil Arjunda District Balod (C.G.). 5 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 6 - Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Balod District Balod (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. For Respondents No. 5 & 6 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner on account of the death of its Son due to electrocution. 10.2 Any other consequential relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper and for which the petitioner is entitled, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's son died on 05.03.2024 due to electrocution. Immediately thereafter, the incident was reported to the concerned police authorities, who conducted an investigation and subsequently submitted a final report. It is submitted that although the final report records that the deceased died due to electrocution while operating a Tullu Pump, the petitioner contends that the electrocution occurred primarily on account of the negligence of the Chhattisgarh State Power 3 Distribution Company Limited. It is, therefore, argued that since the death of the petitioner's son was caused by such negligence, the petitioner is legally entitled to payment of appropriate compensation from the respondent authorities. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 and 6 submits that the petitioner's son died within the domestic premises while operating a Tullu Pump and, therefore, the case does not fall within the ambit of the compensation scheme envisaged under Circular dated 10.09.2018. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already preferred an application seeking compensation, which has been duly considered and rejected by order dated 10.10.2025. Accordingly, it is contended that the grievance raised in the present writ petition no longer survives. Learned counsel further places reliance upon the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by this Court in WPC No. 2010 of 2023, wherein, in similar facts and circumstances, the claim for compensation was rejected on the ground that, in terms of Circular dated 10.09.2018, compensation is payable only when the accident occurs in relation to the electricity meter or electrical installation up to the consumer's metering point and not beyond the consumer's internal electrical system. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under the said Circular. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, particularly the final 4 report submitted by the concerned police authorities as well as Circular dated 10.09.2018, this Court finds that the death of the petitioner's son occurred due to electrocution while operating a domestic Tullu Pump within the residential premises. Such an incident does not fall within the scope and coverage of the aforesaid Circular, which governs the grant of compensation in specified cases of electrical accidents. In view of the express provisions contained in the Circular, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of compensation as claimed in the present writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 5. However, before parting with the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that although the respondent authorities have contended that the petitioner's application for compensation was rejected by order dated 10.10.2025, there is nothing on record to indicate that the said order was ever communicated to the petitioner. No endorsement or other material has been placed before this Court to establish that a copy of the rejection order was served upon or dispatched to the petitioner. Such a lapse on the part of the authorities is a matter of serious concern, as every applicant is entitled to be informed of the fate of his application within a reasonable time. Failure to communicate the decision deprives the affected person of the opportunity to avail appropriate legal remedies available under law. Accordingly, this 5 Court expects the competent officers of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited to personally ensure that every order passed on an application is duly communicated to the concerned applicant without delay. The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to exercise due care and ensure that such lapses are not repeated in future, failing which this Court shall be constrained to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat