High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3569/2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D Bhattacharyya , learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB). Also heard Mrs . M Goswami, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. This petition seeks payment of compensation for the death of husband of petition er No. 1 due to electrocution. Case of the petitioners is that husband of petitioner No. 1, Md. Jamal Uddin, wa s aged about 35 years at the time of the occurrence; he was a mason and a reside nt of Village 2 No. Bhatiakhali under Rupahihat Police Station in the district o f Nagaon. On 14.04.2012 at about 1.30 p.m., electric wire of ST line in the vill age of the petitioner got snapped near the house of one Romjan Ali Master. The s napped electric wire fell on LT line below. As a result, electricity connection to the households of the village got burnt. In the said incident, the electric w ires of the house of the petitioners were also burnt and fell on the head of the deceased. As a result, he became senseless due to the electric shock. He was ta ken to the nearby Kawaimari Hospital, where the Doctors declared him dead. Petit ioner Nos. 2 to 5 are sons of Late Jamal Uddin and petitioner No. 6 is the mothe r. In connection with the aforesaid incident, petitioner No. 1 lodged FIR on 15.04. 2012, on the basis of which Rupahihat PS Case No. 175/2012 U/s. 304(A) IPC was r egistered. Post mortem examination was carried out on the deceased at BP Hospital, Nagaon. As per post mortem report dated 15.04.2012, the cause of death of Jamal Uddin wa s due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from head injury as a result of electri cal shock. Petitioner No. 1 submitted representation before respondent No. 3 see king compensation for the death of her husband out of electrocution. No decision was taken on the said representation. Aggrieved, petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the relief a s indicated above. Respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 have filed their common affidavit. In paragraph 5, i t is stated that husband of petitioner No. 1 died inside his own residence on 15 .04.2012 at about 01.30 a.m. because of falling of flexible wire of his house wi ring system upon his body. It is also stated that the 11KV HT line to PHC Bhatia khali had snapped and fell upon on LT line of 2 No. Bhatiakhali village because of which high voltage passed through the LT line and damaged the house wiring sy stem of the deceased, which was not properly done. As a result, flexible wire go t snapped and fell over the body of Jamal Uddin while he was sleeping at night o n ground and he died on the spot. It is further stated that officials of ASEB ha d informed about the said accident to the Chief Electrical Inspector-cum-Advisor , Govt. of Assam on 05.06.2012. Respondent No. 5 has filed affidavit. As per affidavit, process of inquiry of th e electrical accident was going on and that report would be submitted as soon as enquiry was completed. Subsequently, Electrical Accident Report dated 24.01.2013 has been placed before this Court. The relevant portion of the Electrical Accident Report is as under: - (cid:28)8) Cause of Death : As per Post Mortem Test report of BP Civil Hospital of Nagaon in the matter of U /D case No.175/2012 of Rupahihat Police Station, the cause of death was (cid:28)due to shock and hemorrhage resulting head injury (owing to fall trauma) as a result of electric shock (cid:29). 9) Brief Description of the accident At around 01.30 hours on 15.04.2012, one 11 KV over head electric transmission l ine, emanating from 33/11 KV Amoni Sub-station to PHC Bhatiakhali snapped and to uched the LT line feeding the village 2 No. Bhatiakhali, resulting high voltage, heavy flash and glowing/fire etc. caused damage to insulation in consumer’s wir ing which was not properly done. Further, the earth wire in consumer’s premises is also not found. As a result, the PVC/Flexible wire of wiring got damaged, lea ding to snapping and falling over the body of Late Jamal Uddin when he was sleep ing and thus got electrocuted. 10) Causes Leading to the Accident As stated by the Deputy Manager, APDCL of Samaguri Electrical Sub-Division and t he eye witnesses, the 11KV middle line conductor snapped at the mid span due to external fault. During enquiry it appeared that service connections to consumers in the area hav e been given in most unsafe manner in general, viz: bamboo poles are used to giv e connection instead of using PSC poles, no earthing wire is provided in install ations etc. Besides, service connections appeared to have been provided without ensuring safety worthiness of consumer’s installations. From the facts and findings, it is opined that due to touching of LT distributio n overhead line conductors by the snapped 11KV middle line conductor, dangerous high voltage got spread in the entire LT supply network in that area, which in a bsence of any protective controlling device and effective earthing in the sub-st ation and in the premises of the victim, caused damage to insulation in consumer ’s wiring/equipments led to the accident, as the consumer’s wiring was done in a very temporary and unsafe manner. The whole installation system either supplier or the consumer was not done in accordance with the mandatory provisions laid d own in Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to safety and Electric S upply) Regulations, 2010/BIS code of practices. It is evident that fuses of inordinate higher rating were provided at the sub-st ation end for the LT cut out. Besides, the mandatory cradle guard was not provid ed under the HT line above the LT line in the composite arrangement of drawing b oth the HT line conductors in issue using same support poles, though it was inst alled and run only in a street crossing at a populated area. No. fuse did blow i n the sub-station at the time of snapping. Overall protection failed to prevent the accident, which could have been averted had there been an effectively earthe d cradle guard under the line and had the fuses been well graded to address the type of fault of the line in issue, had the wiring system in victim’s house been done in safe manner, had there been effective earthing system in the consumer p remises, had there been effective fuse protection devices in the sub-station, ha d there been proper checking of installation i.e. wiring system etc. before givi ng connection to the consumer by the APDCL, had there been effective earthed ter minal provided by APDCL (ASEB) in consumer’s premises, the instant electrical ac cident resulting to death of the victim would not have taken place. 11) Contraventions: From the facts and circumstances leading to the accident it appears that there o ccurred violation of regulation 12, 13, 16, 31, 62 & 73 of the Central Electrici ty Authority (Measures relating to safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 on part of the owner of the supply system that is the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (ASEB) and violation of regulation 12 of the Central Electricity Au thority (Measures relating to safety and Electric Supply) Regulations 2010 on pa rt by the consumer. 12) Recommendation The provision of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 should be strictly complied with by the o wner of the supply line besides strict compliance of the safety provisions in fu ture. It is suggested that over voltage trip devices should be employed in distr ibution sub-station to fight such situation. (cid:29) From a reading of the affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it is seen that the accident had occurred because the 11KV HT line to PHC Bhatiakhali got snapp ed and fell down on LT line of No. 2 Bhatiakhali village because of which high v oltage passed through the LT line and damaged the house wiring system of the dec eased. The said respondents would, however, contend that house wiring system of the deceased was not properly done. Be that as it may, it is clear from the stan d taken by the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 themselves in their affidavit that th e unfortunate accident had occurred because of external reasons over which the d eceased had no control. Moreover, a careful reading of the Electrical Accident Report would also show th at the accident had occurred because of violation of Regulations 12, 13, 16, 31, 62 and 72 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that duty is cast upon the supplier to ensure that all electric supply lines are in safe condition. Adequate precautions are to be taken to avoid dang er on premises of consumers from such supply lines. Thus, on a prima facie reading of the materials on record, it would be evident t hat the unfortunate accident occurred because of the deficiency and negligence o f the ASEB and its authority. That brings us to the question of payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased on account of death due to electrocution of the deceased. Ordina rily, a writ proceeding may not be the appropriate forum to decide payment of su ch compensation. However, in appropriate cases, the writ court may, as a palliat ive measure, direct payment of some compensation to the affected family of the d eceased leaving them the option to institute appropriate proceeding for determin ation of just compensation. Coming back to the facts of the present case, as per office memorandum dated 22. 12.2008 of ASEB, compensation of Rs.1.50 lakh has been fixed in respect of victi ms (fatal) of electrical accident in the age group of 20 years to 55 years and w ho are not in the employment of ASEB. Based on the above office memorandum, Cour t is of the view that it would meet the ends of the justice, if respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioners on account of deat h of Jamal Uddin. Ordered accordingly. Such payment shall be made within a perio d of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the payment is not made within the aforesaid period, it will carry interest a t the rate of 6% per annum. Needless to say, payment of such compensation, as directed above, would be witho ut prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedin g in accordance with law for further compensation. Writ petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.