High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2158/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Judgment & Order (Oral) By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitio ner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay compensation on account of death of her husband due to electrocution. 02.
Legal Reasoning
Again, this Court in the case of Mosht. Amena Bewa Vrs. Assam St (cid:28)12. Under the law, a very onerous obligation is cast on the Board in transmitti ng and supplying electrical energy. Having regard to the nature of the enterpris e undertaken, the Board has to be extra vigilant and cautious so much so that th e lives and properties of persons are not exposed to any risk or fatal consequen ces. This makes it incumbent on the Board to be meticulously watchful about the installation for supplying such energy so that any omission in maintaining the s ame would make it liable for all adverse consequences flowing therefrom followin g the principle of strict liability. (cid:29) 14. In view of above and considering the inquiry report of the Senio r Electrical Inspector, I am of the view that ASEB and its successor company APD CL are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for the death of her husband . 15. Having held so, the next question which arises for determination is the quantum of compensation. In Mosht. Amena Bewa Vrs. Assam State Electrici ty Board & Ors. (Supra), this Court held that compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in the nature of a palliative and in determining su ch compensation, some guess work is inevitable. Of course, the same has to be re asonable. 16. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that ASEB had iss ued an office memorandum dated 22.12.2008 fixing the amount of compensation in r espect of victims (fatal) of electrical accident, who are not in the employment of ASEB. As per the said office memorandum, in the case of death of a person abo ve 20 years and up to 55 years of age, the amount of compensation has been fixed at Rs.1.50 lakhs. In my opinion, considering the fact that almost 5 years have passed since issuance of the said office memorandum and considering the present financial position prevailing in the country, the aforesaid amount of Rs.1.50 la khs is certainly on the lower side. As already noticed above, the deceased was a school teacher earn 17. ing a salary of more than Rs. 12,000.00 per month as per pay slip placed on reco rd. As per the post mortem report, the age of the deceased at the time of death was 45 years. He has left behind his wife, one son and a daughter to fend for th emselves. 18. Considering the above, I am of the view that the petitioner shou ld be paid compensation of Rs.2.50 lakhs for the death of her husband, late Surj ya Roy. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited by ASEB or APDCL within a period of six (6) weeks from today in the Registry of this Court. The said amount shal l be released to the petitioner on proper identification. 19. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner is not satisfi ed with the aforesaid amount, it will be open to her to institute appropriate pr oceeding before the competent Civil Court for higher compensation. 20.
Arguments
Heard Mr. A Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB. 03. Case of the petitioner is that she is the widow of late Surjya R oy. Her husband was an Assistant Teacher serving at Bartala High School earning a salary of Rs.12,057.00 per month. He was the sole bread earner of the family c omprising of one daughter and one son, besides his wife, the petitioner. 04. On 15.08.2009 at about 08.45 a.m. in the morning, petitioner’s h usband was clearing the compound. When he attempted to cut a branch of a standin g tree, he received electric shock and became senseless. Though he was taken to the hospital for his treatment, he expired. His nephew, Sri Amarendra Roy, lodge d first information before the Mukalmua Police Station on 15.08.2009 regarding t he death of his uncle due to electrocution. The said first information was treat ed as FIR and on the basis of the same, Mukalmua UD PS Case No. 11/2009 was regi stered. In the course of investigation, post mortem was carried out on the dead body of the deceased and as per post mortem report, death was caused due to elec trocution. Later on, police submitted final report on 16.04.2010 stating that th e victim died due to electrocution. As the petitioner was finding it difficult to maintain her famil 05. y because of the sudden demise of the sole bread earner, she submitted a represe ntation dated 25.01.2011 before the Executive Engineer, Nalbari Electrical Divis ion, Nalbari, Assam seeking compensation for the death of her husband because of electric shock. It was contended that petitioner’s husband died because of the negligence of the field workers of Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB). However , the said representation failed to elicit any response. 06. g the relief as indicated above. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seekin 07. Respondent No. 3, i.e. the Chief Electrical Inspector, Assam has filed affidavit through the Senior Electrical Inspector, Govt. of Assam, Guwaha ti Zone-III. Inquiry report of electrical accident has been annexed to the said affidavit. As per the said inquiry report dated 12.06.2013, the accident leading to the death of petitioner’s husband occurred because the branches of the tree, which were being cut by the victim had come in contact with the 11 KV line. It was pointed out that Regulations 12 and 64 (3) of the Central Electricity Author ity (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 (2010 Re gulations) were violated. Respondents No. 1, 4 & 5 have filed a common affidavit. Stand ta 08. ken in the said affidavit is that Government of Assam had dissolved ASEB and had transferred its function and re-assigned its personnel to its successor entitie s, including Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL). The said respondents have stated that on the fateful day, petitioner’s husband had climbed on to the tree and was cutting a long branch of the same. While doing so, the branch touc hed the 11 KV supply line which caused electrocution. Accident had occurred beca use of the fault and callousness of the deceased, who did not inform anybody tha t he would be cutting the branches of the tree. The contention of the petitioner that her husband died because of the fault and negligence of ASEB or APDCL has been denied. It has also been canvassed that since the claim of the petitioner i s highly disputed and the claim is covered by the law of torts, the appropriate forum to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner would be the Civil Court. 09. Submissions made have been considered. 10. The fact that petitioner’s husband died of electrocution is not disputed. Respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 5 have also not assailed the inquiry report of the Senior Electrical Inspector dated 12.06.2013. That being the position, the C ourt may proceed on the basis of the aforesaid inquiry report. Senior Electrical Inspector or the Chief Electrical Inspector are statutory authorities and their report and opinion cannot be and should not be lightly brushed aside. Senior El ectrical Inspector has pointed out that the branches of the tree, which the peti tioner had gone to cut to feed his goat, were below the 11 KV line. Suddenly, th e branches came in contact with the 11 KV line, as a result of which he got elec tric shock and died. He has specifically pointed out that there was negligence o n the part of the supplier of electricity in strictly following the safety regul ations of the 2010 Regulations. Specific finding has been recorded that Regulati ons 12 and 64(3) of the 2010 Regulations have been violated. While Regulation 12 deals with general safety requirements pertaining to construction, installation , protection, operation and maintenance of electric lines and apparatus, Regulat ion 64 deals with erection or alteration of buildings, structures, flood banks a nd elevation of roads. The post mortem report as well as the final report submit ted by the police also unambiguously states that the petitioner’s husband had di ed because of electrocution. Therefore, there can be no two opinions about the c ause of death of petitioner’s husband. 11. Normally and as a general rule, claims of compensation based on tortious liability are to be decided by the competent Civil Court. But in a case of loss suffered because of admitted negligence in the discharge of statutory d uty, there can be no bar for a Writ Court to entertain a claim of compensation f or such loss. Even otherwise, considering the public character of the duties c 12. arried out by the ASEB and its successor companies, it cannot escape from the ad verse consequence which may arise on account of any omission in the discharge o f its duties by applying the principle of strict liability. Explaining the conce pt of strict liability, the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board Vrs . Shail Kumari and Ors.; reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 held as under: (cid:28)8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable unde r law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irresp ective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such und ertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the v ery nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as (cid:28)strict liability (cid:29). It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot b e held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such co nsideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions. (cid:29) 13. ate Electricity Board & Ors.; reported in 2007 (3) GLT 32 held as under:
Decision
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.