High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1865/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also he ard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel representing the APDCL. I have also he ard Mrs. R. Gogoi, learned State Counsel.
Decision
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, W/o- late Lalcha nd Ali has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation in publ ic law remedy on account of death of her husband due to electrocution. As stated in the writ petition, the deceased husband of the petitioner came in contact wi th a live electric wire on 29.06.2012, while he was proceeding towards a Rice Mi ll with the help of a Raft made of Banana tree. Admittedly there was heavy flood and according to the petitioner because of rising of water, the electric wire, in absence of any electric poles in between, became loose and came down to water level. It was in such circumstances, the deceased came in contact with the live wire while he was on the raft and he died of the electrocution. Pursuant to the FIR lodged, Chaygaon U.D. PS Case No.28/2012 was registered. Post-mortem etc. was carried out and as per the post-mortem report, the deceased died due to electrocution. In the counter affidavit filed by the r espondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 i.e. the APDL authorities, the accident occurred due t o the following:- a) That on 29.06.2012 at around 2.30 p.m. one Md. Lalchand Ali, son of late Mafezuddin Ali was traversing on a plot/raft made up at barooa stamps as because that particular area was reeling under flood water. Mr. Lalcha nd Ali was using a long raw bamboo pole as per to navigate his barrack at stamp raft/plot through the flood waters. While doing so the said long bamboo oar came in contact with the electrical wire, causing the alleged electrical accident. b) Although the area was flooded the clearance of the elect rical wires from the ground/floodwater was sufficient. c) That electrical accident involving the petitioner’s husb and late Lalchand Ali was caused due to fault of using long bamboo oar (raw). d) The alleged electrical accident did not occur for any fa ult and negligence of APCDL as because it took all safety measures in protecting and maintaining the concerned electrical lines but fault and sheer negligence f or carelessly using a long bamboo oar in broad day light. It is difficult to ima gine that the petitioner’s husband would miss the sight of the overhead electric al line the approximate length of its bamboo oar and clearance of the overhead l ine from the flood water. As such, the cause of accident was sheer negligence an d carelessness of the deceased. Further, by report dated 30.06.2012 the concerned official of AP DCL informed about the said electrical accident to the authorities. (cid:29) On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the Chief E lectrical Inspector i.e the respondent No.3, the enquiry report has been enclose d. In the report, it has been sated thus:- (cid:28)10. CAUSES LEADING TO THE ACCIDENT: The accident occurred while there w as flood in the village Champupara Pathar. There was a bare service line above t he flood water to run a motor. Due to flood the clearance between the lie conduc tor and the upper water level of flood water was reduced. The victim travelled b y a raft made of banana tree. He had to travel on the raft under the line servic e line. While trying to travel under the line he lifted the live conductor by ha nd and as a result of which he got electrocuted. 11. CONTRAVENTION: From the facts and circumstances it appears that the followin g regulations of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to safety and electric supply) 2010 Regulations were violated. 1. Regulation No-12. 12. CONCLUSION: The supplier of Electricity should strictly follow the safety re gulation of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and E lectric Supply) Regulation 2010. (cid:29) If we go by the aforesaid stand of the APDCL authorities and the Senior Electrical Inspector, there is inherent contradiction. While the APDCL a uthorities have stated that the deceased attracted the accident making use of th e bamboo pole, but as per the report of the Senior Electrical Inspector, due to flood the clearance between the live conductor and the upper water level of floo d was reduced and consequently the victim while travelling by a raft made of Ban ana trees, came in contact with the live conductor. As per the said report, he h ad lifted the live conductor by hand. While Mr. Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when t he clearance between the water level and the electric wire was reduced considera bly due to flood, it was incumbent on the part of the APDCL authorities to take appropriate measures to avoid any accident. On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharjee , learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, by producing the judgment of the Apex Court, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 156 (SDO, GRID Corporation of Orissa ltd and others -vs - Timudu Oram), submits that merely because the deceased died on electrocution, in absence of any negligence on the part of the APDCL, this Court exercising wr it jurisdiction cannot award any compensation. Mrs. R. Gogoi, learned State Coun sel referring to the aforesaid report of the Senior Electrical Inspector, submit s that while it is true that the clearance between the water level and the elect ric wire was considerably reduced due to flood, but at the same time, the deceas ed ought to have taken care of the said situation to avoid any accident. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. As to what is the report of the Senior Electrical Inspector, has been noted above. As per the said report, there was violation of the regulation of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) 2010. As per the conclusion reached in the said enquiry report, the supp lier of electricity should strictly follow the safety regulation as provided for in the said regulation of 2010. Although it is stated in the report that the de ceased had touched the electric wire by hand, but in the same time it cannot be lost sight of the fact that no safety measure was adopted by the APDCL authoriti es, which was required to be taken in view of the facts that there was flood in the village and the clearance between the flood water and the electric line have reduced considerably to such extent that the deceased could have been touched t he wire by hand. So far as the decision in Timudu Oram (Supra) is concerned, apar t from the fact that the ratio of a decision will have to be understood in the g iven facts and circumstances of the case. In the said case, the Apex Court was c oncerned that the question as to whether the loss was caused by negligence of th e authority. Nothing could be shown that the accident occurred due to negligence of the authority. In the instant case, negligence on the part of the APDCL auth orities writ large on the face of it in as much as no safety measure was adopted to avoid the probable accident, because of the reduction in the clearance betwe en the water level and the electric wire. That apart, no extra electric pole was also there, which could have saved the incident. For all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed, di recting the respondents to award compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- to the petitioner . The amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court and in terms, th e registry, shall allow the petitioner to withdraw the amount upon appropriate i dentification and verification. Let the amount be deposited on or before 30.09.2013.