The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14548 of 2016 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Dusmanta Samal . Petitioner Mr. S.K.Dwibedy, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa and others . Opp. Parties Mr. S.C.Dash, A.G.A. Mr. Bibhudhendra Dash, Advocate for O.P. No.3 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA _____________________________________________________ Date of hearing : 07.03.2025 | Date of Judgment : 16.04.2025 _____________________________________________________ A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. The hapless father who lost his son due to electrocution, has approached this court by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article- 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner has stated that, it was the negligence and inaction of the opposite parties in taking proper care of the electric pole meant for public use, that has made him and his entire family go through this immeasurable agony and sorrow. The grieving family which has lost a young Page 1 of 28 member has alleged violation of fundamental right as guaranteed under Article- 21 of the Constitution of India and have also prayed for adequate compensation from the opposite parties for loss of life, as would be deemed appropriate by this court. FACTS OF THE CASE 2. Short facts involved herein, as pleaded by the Petitioner, is that the petitioner‟s 17-year-old son, Sidhanta Samal, was a +2 Science student at Janata College, Satamaeithi, Dhenkanal. On February 16, 2016, around 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM, on his way to the nearby shop, he accidentally came in contact with a charged electric pole. The passers- by attempted to rescue him using sticks and took him to Khajuria Kata CHC for treatment, but he was later declared dead at Hindol SDH. A U.D. Case was registered, and the inquest report as well as the post-mortem confirmed electrocution as the cause of death. Subsequently, on 8.01.15, an FIR was filed by the uncle of the deceased, against the Junior Engineer and S.D.O. of ENZEN Company under Sections 285, 304A, and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. After a thorough investigation by the I.O., chargesheet was submitted before the learned SDJM, Hindol. The Petitioner has now approached this court, seeking adequate compensation for the tragic and untimely loss of life of his son due to electrocution. Page 2 of 28 SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently argued that, it is the statutory duty of the opposite parties to maintain all electrical apparatus including electric poles used for the purpose of distribution of electricity, in such a way that, it doesn‟t lead to loss of life or limb or cause any damage. However, in this case, the opposite parties have acted negligently and carelessly, which has led to the death of the Petitioner‟s son by coming in contact with a charged electric pole. Therefore, he stated that, though the loss of life of the son of the petitioner cannot be compensated or undone, however, the Petitioner can avail some respite in the form of monetary compensation, for which the Petitioner has approached this court. SUBMISSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, by referring to the counter affidavit, at the outset, denied any allegation of negligence and inaction on their behalf. Both the counsels appearing for the opposite parties made an attempt to convince this court by referring to documents that, the deceased had interfered with the installations in the electric pole to repair the domestic connection which was disconnected due to rain and wind. He took such a step, without any information to the Page 3 of 28 Opposite party or its agent. While doing this, he came in contact with the live service wire and died due to electrical shock. To support this claim he placed reliance on the post mortem report, and pointed out that, injuries other than burn injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Therefore, he argued that the death of the deceased was caused due to his own fault and not due to negligence or inaction of the Opposite Parties. 5. He further stated that the Petitioner and the Opposite Parties are putting forth different versions for the circumstances that lead to the death of the Petitioner‟s son. In such factual
Facts
background, it was further contended that, the case involves disputed facts, therefore, the court doesn‟t have jurisdiction to entertain this petition under Article- 226 of the Constitution of India. He supported this contention by placing reliance on decisions such as SDO, GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Others v. Timudu Oram, (2005) 6 SCC 156, Ranjita Palai & Another v. State of Odisha & Others, W.P. (C) No. 14065 of 2005 decided in 07.09.2017; Abhimanyu Muduli & Others v. CESU, W.P. (C) 4654 of 2004 decided on 10.11.2006; Minati Panigrahi v. CESU and others, W.A. No. 111/2007 and Suna Dei v. State of Orissa and others, W.P. (C) No. 2784 of 2015 decided on 23.08.2022. It is his case that, civil court is the Page 4 of 28 appropriate forum to approach, as evidences need to be adduced to prove the facts due to which the electrocution occurred. REPLY BY PETITIONER 6.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the cases of Executive Engineer CESU Ltd. Cuttack Electrical Division v. Hema Sethy reported in 2011 (II) OLR 708; Rama Santa & others v. Chairman cum M.D. GRIDCO Orissa and others reported in 2014 (II) ILR CUT 328; Bhagaban Rout & Anr. v. Executive Engineer, CESCO, Salipur reported in 2023 (I) OLR- 188; CEO, CESU, Bhubaneswar and Another v. Anjana Prusty reported in 2017 (II) OLR- 112; Page 5 of 28 Bharat Nath and others v. CESCO, represented by the Chief Executive Officer, IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar reported in 2007 (Supp-1) OLR-315. 7. Referring to the above noted judgments, he finally stated that in all those cases, court has allowed the compensation in the favor of claimants on the undisputed fact of death due to electrocution when materials on record like that police papers and post mortem report supported the fact that the death of the deceased is due to electrocution. Therefore, he pleads that on basis of investigation done so far by the I.O. and the post mortem report under Annexure-1 to the writ petition; the inquest report under Annexure- 2 to the writ petition; final form/ chargesheet submitted by the I.O Balimi P.S.; and the cognizance order of SDM Hindol dated 07.09.2015 against the Opposite Parties, the fact of electrocution death prima facie stand proved and thus the writ petition is maintainable and compensation can very well be awarded in favor of the Petitioner by this court. This is more so, keeping in view the principle envisaged in Article- 21 of the Constitution of India with regard to protection of life and liberty of every citizen of this nation. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT Page 6 of 28 8. Heard counsels for the respective parties, evaluated the documents submitted and perused the precedents cited. 9. For being compensated monetarily, the Petitioner is required to prima facie establish that due to the negligence of the opposite party- electricity distribution company and its agents, be it intentional or unintentional, loss, harm or injury has been caused to one party by the other and ultimately such negligence gives rise to a civil liability under “law of tort”. The terminology “injury” or “harm” under the law of tort has been given a very wide interpretation by various judicial pronouncements. Having said that, this court is required to analyze the factual background of the case as well as its power to award compensation, before coming to the definite conclusion with regard to the act of negligence and consequential civil liability under the law of tort. UNDISPUTED FACTS PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT 10. In order to address the rival contention made by the opposite parties, that when the case involves disputed facts, thewrit petition is not maintainable, the court finds it necessary to enumerate the observation made in few cases cited by the Petitioner. In Bhagaban Rout & Anr. v. Executive Engineer, CESCO, Salipur reported in 2023 (I) OLR- 188; the court held Page 7 of 28 that the writ petition is maintainable and awarded compensation in favor of the Petitioner for the death of his son due to electrocution, on basis of undisputed fact of death due to electrocution proven by the postmortem report, inquest report and charge sheet. The court in the aforesaid case observed that, “5. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties, this Court finds, undisputedly there is death of the son of the parents appearing as the Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 on 13.08.2006. It is clear from the inquest report as well as the post mortem report, the death of the deceased caused due to electrocution, final form also supports the case of the Petitioners no doubt the case could not be further investigated for there is no ascertainment of involvement of any person however all the documents such as inquest report, post mortem report as well as the final form are all in one direction undisputedly suggesting there is death of the deceased on account of electrocution coming in contact of line wire undisputedly belonging to the CESCO. There should not be also any dispute that the wire or the poll came in contact with the body of the deceased. It is at this stage coming to consider the stand of the department, the Opposite Parties, this Court finds, the Opposite Parties contest herein simply on the basis of disclosures vide document at Annexure-A which reads as follows:- xxxx 6. Coming to the argument of counsel for the department questioning the maintainability of Page 8 of 28 the case of form all supports the Petition for there involvement of disputed question of fact, this Court first of all finds, the F.I.R, inquest report, post mortem report and final the Petitioner so far their claim on the death of their son on electrocution, whereas the department even though attempted to lodge an FIR on allegation of attempt for stealing energy against the deceased there is neither any following up action for undertaking a legal exercise involving their allegation involves Annexure-A nor there is even any internal report produced either in counter or additional affidavit bringing in some material to at least making out a case involving a theft attempt. the finds, This Court here Petitioner rather gets support of a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others vrs. Sukamani Das and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3412. This Court here also finds support of a decision of this Court on the entertainability of Writ Petition through judgment of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Central Electricity Supply Utility Ltd., Cuttack Electrical Division, Jobra, Cuttack vrs. Hema Sethy reported in 2011 (II) OLR- 708. the case of in Through AIR 2001 SC 485 vide paragraph-12 therein, the Hon'ble Apex Court came to hold as follows:- 12. Even if there is no negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the motor vehicle, but accident happens while the vehicle was in use, should not the owner be made liable for damages to the person who suffered on Page 9 of 28 account of such accident? This question depends upon how far the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1861-73 All ER (Reprint)1) (supra) can apply in motor accident cases. The said Rule is summarized by Blackburn J. thus: The true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default, or, perhaps, or the act of God; but, as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient." This decision also supports the case of the Petitioner here. finds involving the F.I.R. at 7. At this stage taking into consideration the decision taken support by the opponent, this the Petitioner the claim of Court though based on a reporting in the inquest report as well as F.I.R. and further final form the observations instance of the parties in loss but however there is no material establishing the case contrary to the existence in all these records. Further in spite of involvement of such serious issue, department failed in undertaking the minimum an enquiry at least coming to a finding by its own people that there is in fact, an attempt for stealing energy by cutting AB cable. Page 10 of 28 8. It is in the above background, this Court finds, there is no disputed fact involved herein. In the circumstance this Court finds, the Petitioners for the undisputed loss of their son at the age of twenty four years observes, there is great loss to the parents not only on account of death of their son but there is also loss of mental agony as well as love and affection and Petitioners appropriate deserved compensation.” 11. Similarly, in CEO, CESU, Bhubaneswar and Another v. Anjana Prusty reported in 2017 (II) OLR- 112, the division bench of this court approved the decision of the single judge bench wherein compensation was awarded to the petitioner in case of death due to electrocution, with the following observation- taking into “3. Learned Single Judge, consideration the rival contentions of the parties and case laws reported in 2015 (I) OLR 637 (T. Bimala Vs. Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack and others): AIR 2005 MP 2 (Ramesh Singh Pawar Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and others): AIR 2002 SC 551 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar and others), and 1968 Law Reports (3) HL 330 (Ryland Vs. Fletcher) held that the opposite parties cannot shirk their responsibility on trivial grounds. For the lackadaisical attitude exhibited by the opposite parties, a valuable life was lost. Keeping in view the age and avocation of the deceased, learned Single Judge directed the appellants (opposite parties in the writ petition) to pay from Page 11 of 28 interim compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- within two months, and the Petitioner to work out her remedies in the common law forum for higher compensation. further permitted xxx 8. In view of the discussions made above, more particularly applying the doctrine of „strict liability‟, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgement. Thus, the writ appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.” 12. Similar observation was made by this court in the case of Bharat Nath and others v. CESCO, represented by the Chief Executive Officer, IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar reported in 2007 (Supp-1) OLR-315, fact. The death due “4. In the light of the rival contentions, it is clear that late Urmila Nath died due to electrocution coming in contact with bare conductor (live line) which was lying on the agricultural field in village Andhala which is an undisputed to electrocution being the undisputed fact, the only question that remains to be decided in this writ application is that whether the CESCO- licensee can shift its responsibility or liability by raising that unfortunate occurrence has occurred due to theft of electric conductors by the culprits who have left the (bare conductor) live line at the site. The opposite parties have stated that their authorities have lodged F.I.R. in the local Police Station. While the fact is admitted in the Page 12 of 28 counter affidavit, if there is any negligence on the part of the police authorities in not taking any action on the F.I.R. lodged by the licensee, it is open to the licensee to take appropriate steps available to them in law to eliminate the inaction of the police authorities. But, by merely lodging an F.I.R. against the alleged culprits, cannot in law absolve the licensee of their responsibility to the general public to maintain their transmission system in the manner so as not to endanger the public safety. served
Arguments
Per Contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, strenuously opposed the stance taken by the opposite parties. He argued that, the opposite parties have failed to produce any material on record to support their contention with regard to the deceased‟s own fault in happening of his death. Therefore, he claims that in absence of any material on record, the claim becomes unsustainable. He further stated that, the contention of the opposite parties that as it involves disputed facts, the writ petition is not maintainable, is also unsustainable. On the question of maintainability of the writ petition, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman, GRIDCO and others v. Sukamani Das and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3412, and some decisions of
Decision
5. There being no other disputed question of facts in this case, following the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Nirmala Nayak and Ors. v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Anr. OJC No. 6339 of 1997, disposed of on 13.4.2005, we are of the view that the ends of if a justice would be better compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ - (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) is awarded in favour of the Petitioners and we order accordingly. The said compensation shall be paid to the Petitioners with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of death of the deceased till the date of actual payment. This Court further directs the Opp. Party to make such calculation and deposit the said amount either in cash or by way of cheque with the Registrar (Judl.) of the Court within a period of four weeks today. The Registrar (Judl.) thereupon shall send notice to Petitioner No. 4. The Petitioner No. 4 must produce some material or evidence to show that he is the husband of the deceased-Urmila Nath. After being satisfied about the relationship between the deceased and the Petitioners, the Registrar from Page 13 of 28 (Judl.) shall disburse the amount to Petitioner No. 4 on proper identification.” 13. In addition to the above cases cited by the Petitioner, the case of Bibekanada Dash and another v. C.E.O., NESCO (Electrical), Balesore and others, W.P. (C) No. 18039 of 2008 decided on 10.08.2016, also involved similar factual background and similar objection as the present case in hand, was put forth by the opposite parties. However, the court decided the case in favour of the Petitioner by granting compensation by making the following observation- “7. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra, the case of the Petitioners may be examined. Immediately after the occurrence, the matter was reported to the Jajpur Police Station. Thereafter Jajpur P.S.U.D.Case No.50/97 was registered. After enquiry, the police submitted the report stating that the cause of death was due to electric shock. The postmortem report reveals that the deceased was 22 years and the cause of death was due to electric shock. In view of the clinching material on record, the conclusion is irresistible that the son of the Petitioners died due to electrocution. As held above, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or 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 carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature Page 14 of 28 of such activity. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. The opposite parties have taken an evasive plea to exonerate from liability. The opposite parties cannot shirk their responsibility on trivial grounds. For the lackadaisical attitude exhibited by the opposite parties, a valuable life was lost. The deceased was a young man of 22 years at the time of accident. He was the only earning member of the family. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, this Court directs the interim compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Two lakhs) to the Petitioners within two months leaving the Petitioners to work out their remedies in the common law forum for higher compensation.” opposite parties pay to 14. Therefore, in the light of above cited precedents and the factual matrix as admitted, the undisputed facts before this court are that, the Opposite Parties no. 4- 6 i.e. Enzen Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd, was responsible for maintenance of the LT supply Line in the jurisdiction where the electrocution occurred. The Post Mortem under report dated 16.02.2014 under Annexure- 1 to the writ petition, unambiguously discloses the cause of death to be ante- mortem electrocution. The inquest report under Annexure- 2 to the writ petition, prepared on the day of the death, also reveal that the cause of death was electric shock and there is no suspicion of any foul play. The chargesheet / final report C.S. No. 42 dated 28.06.2015 submitted by investigating officer of Balimi Page 15 of 28 P.S., Dhenkanal, pursuant to Balimi PS Case no.- 06 of 2015, states that a prima facie evidence is made out against Mr. Anshu Kumar, J.E.- cum- Junior Manager, Enzen Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Amiya Prasad Mallik, EDO- cum- Deputy Manager, Enzen Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd, for the commission of offence under Section- 285/304A/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1840. Pursuant to this, SDJM Hindol by its order dated 07.09.2015, has found that a prima facie case under Section- 285/304A/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1840, is made out against the accused persons and cognizance has been taken and summons of appearance has also been issued against the accused. APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE STRICT LIABILTIY 15. The counsels for the opposite parties have strenuously argued that, they did not act negligently or carelessly and were not responsible for the death caused to the Petitioner‟s son. In this context and upon perusal of the case, the court finds it profitable to discuss the principle of strict liability under the “law of tort”. There are many activities which are so hazardous that they constitute constant danger to person and property of other. The rule of strict liability was propounded by the English Common Law courts in the celebrated case of Ryland v. Fletcher, reported Page 16 of 28 in 1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330, where Justice Blackburn had observed thus: “The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” 16. The doctrine of strict liability is based on the fundamental fact that the undertakers of the hazardous activities have to compensate for the damages caused, irrespective of any carelessness on their part. The basis of liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of the activities. In this aspect, the principle of strict liability resembles negligence which is also based on foreseeable harm. But the difference is that, the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precaution and so if the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm, he cannot be held liable. Such a consideration 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. The rationale behind strict liability is that the activities coming within its fold are those entailing extraordinary Page 17 of 28 risk to others, either in the seriousness or the frequency of the harm threatened. 17. There are seven exceptions formulated through judicial pronoucements to the said doctrine such as Act of God, act of stranger, plaintiff‟s own fault, etc. The rule of strict liability has been approved and adopted in various decisions of the Supreme Court of India such as Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1480 and Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. V. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1690. Similarly, Supreme Court has extended the principle of strict liability on the electricity companies engaged in supply and distribution of electricity and has granted compensation to the victim of electrocution. In the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162, by applying the aforesaid principle, Apex Court awarded compensation to the widow and dependants of the deceased, who died due to electrocution by coming in contact with a snapped live electric wire lying on the road. The court made the following observation thus, “7. It is an admitted the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes that fact Page 18 of 28 injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is the potentially of dangerous dimension managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 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 under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. 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 Page 19 of 28 precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration 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.” Therefore, with the advent of the doctrine of strict liability and acceptance thereof as a sound legal principle, the electricity distribution companies cannot escape their liability by merely stating that they weren‟t negligent in maintaining the apparatuses used for supply and distribution of electricity. COURT’S POWER TO AWARD COMPENSATION 18. With regard to the power of court to award compensation in the cases of infringement of fundamental rights of the citizens, it is necessary to discuss that, one of the most remarkable features of the Constitution is that it provides an enforceable guarantee of the protection of fundamental rights incorporated in Part III of the Constitution. The jurisprudence on fundamental rights has evolved tremendously during the life of the Constitution and the constitutional courts have not looked away when the peculiar needs of a case necessitated a deviation from the traditional understanding of the principles. It would be apposite to take note of the pertinent observations of the Supreme Court, made way Page 20 of 28 back in 1952 in State of Madras v. V.G. Row reported in AIR 1952 SC 196, wherein the court recognised itself as the sentinel on the qui vive i.e. a watchful guardian of fundamental rights. If any fundamental right, especially Right to life and personal liberty under Article- 21 is infringed, court has inherent and extraordinary power to see that justice is done. 19. At this juncture, court would like to reflect on the observations made in few judicial pronouncements, which have discussed the power of the constitutional courts to award compensation, when there is infringement of fundamental rights. In T. Bimala v. Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack and others, reported in 2015(I) OLR-637, it was observed that, “9. The language of Article 226 of the Constitution does not admit of any limitation on the powers of the High Court for the exercise of jurisdiction thereunder. The power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The apex Court in catena of the decisions laid down certain guidelines and self-imposed limitations have been put there subject to which the High Courts would exercise jurisdiction. Those guidelines cannot be mandatory in all circumstances. When a citizen approaches the Page 21 of 28 High Court in writ petition that a wrong is caused, the High Court will step into protect him, whether that wrong was done by the State or an instrumentality of the State. The High Court cannot pull down the shutters.” 20. In M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 151, the Apex Court observed as under: “Next is the issue of “maintainability of the writ petition” before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants though initially very strongly contended that while the negligence aspect has been dealt with under penal laws already, the claim for compensation cannot but be left to be adjudicated by the civil laws and thus the Civil Court‟s jurisdiction ought to have been invoked rather than by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This plea of non- maintainability of the writ petition though advanced at the initial stage of the submissions but subsequently the same was not pressed and as such we need not detain ourselves on that score, excepting however recording that the law Courts exist for the society and they have an obligation to meet the social aspirations of citizens since law Courts must also respond to the needs of the people. In this context, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court: the first in line is Page 22 of 28 the decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (AIR 1993 SC 1960) wherein this Court relying upon the decision in Rudal Sah (Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar), (AIR 1983 SC 1086) decried the illegality and impropriety in awarding compensation in a proceeding in which the Court‟s power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution stands involved and thus observed that it was a clear case for award of compensation to the Petitioner for custodial death of her son. It is undoubtedly true, however, that in the present context, there is no infringement of the State‟s obligation, unless of course the State can also be termed to be joint tortfeasor, but since the case of the parties stands restricted and without imparting any liability on the State, we do not deem it expedient to deal with the issue any further except noting the two decisions of this Court as above and without expression of any opinion in regard thereto.” 21. In Ramesh Singh Pawar v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and others, reported in AIR 2005 MP 2, Apex Court observed that: “Currently judicial attitude has taken a shift from the old doctrine concept and the traditional jurisprudential system – affection of the people has been taken note of rather serious Page 23 of 28 and the judicial concern thus stands on a footing to provide expeditious relief to an individual when needed rather than taking recourse to the old conservative doctrine of the Civil Court‟s obligation to award damages. As a matter of fact the decision in D.K. Basu has not only dealt with the issue in a manner apposite to the social need of the “Country but the learned Judge with his usual felicity of expression firmly established the current trend of justice-oriented approach”. Law Courts will lose their efficacy if they cannot possibly respond to the need of the society – technicalities their might be many but the justice-oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality since technicality cannot and ought not to outweigh the course of justice.” In light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and progression of the constitutional law for protection of constitutional rights and payment of compensation for damage caused to the citizens, the constitutional courts can comfortably assume the power to award compensation, in a scenario when the undisputed facts reveal that the death of a person was due to electrocution and such fact is established by prima facie evidence, otherwise failure to do so would ultimately amount to Page 24 of 28 infringement of fundamental Right to Life guaranteed under Article- 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. OBSERVATION OF THIS COURT 22. It is the finding of this court that, the fact that death of the deceased was caused due to electrocution, is well established by the charge sheet, post mortem report and inquest report which are part of the investigation carried by the I.O. in this case. In addition to this, the final report and the cognizance order, indicate towards existence of a prima facie case and the culpability of the Opposite Parties. Moreover, with regard to the contention of the Opposite Parties that the post mortem supports their stance, this Court finds that such ground is hypothetical and based solely on the claim of the Opposite Parties to exonerate themselves of any liability. 23. Keeping in view the precedents cited above, the materials placed on record and the observation made, the court is of the considered view that, the prayer made by the Petitioner is sustainable. The opposite parties are engaged in a hazardous activity, and they will be strictly liable for the loss of life that had occurred due to their undertaken activity. The judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of fundamental Page 25 of 28 rights, has never shied away from trying to make good of what is lost in monetary terms. It is universal truth that loss of human life can never be compensated by bringing back a dead young man to life, however, the bereaved family can be compensated in monetary terms for the loss of income sustained by such family due to untimely death of a young member of the family. 24. On a close scrutiny of the factual background of the petitioner‟s case, it is observed that after the mishap occurred, the matter was reported to the local police. An investigation was conducted by registering a P.S. Case. In course of investigation, the inquest report prepared, post mortem done, statement of witnesses recorded and finally charge sheet was filed implicating the accused person‟s names in the charge sheet for commission of a cognizable case. The matter did not stop there. In the meanwhile, cognizance has also been taken by the jurisdictional magistrate. All the aforesaid materials clearly establishes electrocution. The accused persons were now required to face trial to establish the fact that the deceased died not due to their negligence and to avoid their conviction under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On the contrary, nothing has been brought on record to establish that the death was not due to electrocution. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this court has no hesitation to hold Page 26 of 28 that the death was due to electrocution. Moreover, the doctrine of strict liability under the law of tort could very well be applied to the facts of the present case as the Opposite Parties also were carrying on activities which were hazardous, harmful and risky to human life. Therefore, they are liable to compensate the petitioner for untimely death of his young son. CONCLUSION 25. Therefore, in the light of the above observation, this court holds that the Opposite Parties No. 4-6, who is in- charge of upkeep, maintenance, etc. of the electric lines, is squarely liable to pay an interim compensation. So far as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, the „OERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2020‟, which came into force on 30.05.2020, has been brought to the notice of this court. As per regulation 5 of the aforesaid regulations, the quantum of compensation payable in the event of a loss of human life has been fixed to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) per person. As such, keeping in view the aforesaid regulation, this Court deems it proper to direct the Opposite Party No.3 to pay an interim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four lakhs) to the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of this judgement, with a right to recover the same from Page 27 of 28 Opposite Party No. 4 to 6. Further, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to pursue other suitable remedies in the common law forum for higher compensation, if so advised. 26. Writ petition stands disposed of in favour of the Petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 16th of April, 2025/ Rubi/J.S. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-Apr-2025 18:24:45 Page 28 of 28