High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4063/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
Legal Reasoning
With the help of this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Const itution of India, the petitioner, who is widow of Late Sahadat Hussain, has soug ht for issuance of appropriate writ(s), directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner compensation of a sum of Rs. 4 Lakh for the death of her husband, whi ch took place due to electrocution. 2. I have heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel, appearing for the petitione rs, and Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the responde nt Nos. 1, 4 and 5. I have also heard Ms. G. Borah, learned Government counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. The case of the petitioner may, in brief, be described, thus: On 13.02.2008, Emdad Hussain, owner-cum-driver of a truck, bearing regis tration No. AS-G-3351, accompanied by his elder brother, Sahadat Hussain (since deceased), was coming by driving the said vehicle and, while the vehicle was bei ng so driven, the wheels of the truck got stuck in the soft soil, the vehicle sk idded and, as a result thereof, the truck struck a transformer, which had been s et up by the Assam State Electricity Board by the side of the road. In conseque nce of touching the transformer, the entire truck got electrocuted. Both Emdad Hussain and Sahadat Hussain suffered from electrocution. However, while Emdad H ussain survived, Sahadat Hussain died as a result of electrocution. The post-mo rtem report revealed that the death was due to instant cardio-respiratory failur e, because of electrocution. Though the respondents have resisted the petition by contending to the e 4. ffect, inter-alia, that the transformer stood installed, at the said place, for a long time without causing any loss of life or property and had the truck, in q uestion, not been driven in a rash and negligent manner, the accident would not have occurred, the fact of the matter remains that it is the specific case of th e petitioner that the transformer had neither any fencing nor any protection or safety walls around it. Consequently, anyone coming in contact with the transfo rmer would have become a victim of electrocution. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the contesting respondents had not 5. taken any precaution and they had not put any protective or safety walls around the transformer. In these circumstances, anybody coming in contact with the tr ansformer would have become a victim of electrocution. It is trite that a person, undertaking an activity involving hazardous o 6. r risky exposure to human life, is liable, under law of torts, to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person irrespective of any negligence or carel essness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such lia bility is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. Th e liability, cast on such an undertaking, is, in law, knownas ’strict liability’ . The concept of ’strict liability’ differs from the liability, which, ordinari ly, arises on account of the negligence or fault, for, when a person is held res ponsible for negligence or fault, the concept comprehends that the foreseeable h arm could have been avoided by taking reasonable precautions. 7. Thus, in a case, where the doctrine of ’strict liability’, is not applic able and the defendant shows that all such steps, which could have been taken fo r avoiding the harm, which a person had suffered, had been taken by the defendan t, the defendant would not be held liable. Such consideration of negligence or fault is, however, irrelevant in the case of ’strict liability’, for, in a case, covered by the rule of ’strict liability’, the defendant is held liable irrespe ctive of the fact as to whether he could have or could not have avoided the part icular harm by taking precaution. To put it a little differently, the rule of ’s trict liability’ means that a person would be liable to compensate a person wron ged even if the wrong was caused not due to negligence or default of the person, who is sued, or even when the defendant had taken all precautions, which could have been taken to avoid a foreseeable harm. However, the concept of ’strict li ability’ is attracted, one may point out, only in those cases, where the defenda nt undertakes an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, f or, the very nature of his activity exposes human beings to danger (See Khiradab ala Nath & Ors., Versus Assam State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in 2008(4 ) GLT 116). When consideration of negligence or fault, on the part of the respondent 8. , is irrelevant in the case of strict liability, it would not help the responden ts’ defence that the accidental electrocution had taken place, because the truck , in question, was driven in rash and negligent manner. 9. Situated thus, it is clear that the contesting respondents are liable to pay compensation for the death of the petitioner’s husband, who was, according to the case of the petitioner, a businessman and used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per mo nth and as he, being the sole bread-earner, is dead, the lone source of liveliho od of the family of the said deceased has completely ended. 10. Though the contesting respondents have denied that the petitioner’s husb and was a businessman or he used to earn Rs. 7,000/-, per month, this denial is evasive inasmuch as there is no material placed by the contesting respondents to show as to what was the source of income of the said deceased and, more so, whe n the respondents have not contended, in the affidavit-in-opposition, that the s aid deceased had no source of livelihood. 11. At any rate, therefore, in the context of the facts of the present case, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner’s husband earned Rs. 4,000/-per month and he died, as the pleadings and the materials on record reveal, in conse quence of the electrocution, when he (petitioner’s husband) was aged about 30 ye ars. 12. Considering the facts and attending circumstances of the present case in their entirety, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs would be ju st and adequate compensation for the petitioner. 13.
Decision
In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the contesting respondents to pay, within a perio d of 3 (three) months from today, a sum of Rs. 3 Lakh, as compensation, and, in the event of failure to make the payment within the period as mentioned hereinbe fore, the said sum of rupees Rs. 3 Lakh shall carry interest @ 12% per annum. 14. Before parting with this writ petition, it is made clear that the contes ting respondents shall remain free to deposit the compensation amount with inter est, if any, in the office of the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court and the amount shall, when deposited, be released in favour of the petitioner on due ver ification. 15. d disposed of with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. With the above observation and directions, this writ petition shall stan