Executive Engingeer vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2016 by which Collector has passed an order under Section 3(1)

of Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (in short the Act, 1991).

The respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 6(1) and 2 of Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 before the Collector, Satna to claim the

compensation of Rs.25,000/-  (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) for death of his buffalo due to electrocution and Rs.15,000/(Rs. Fifteen

Thousand Only) for mental agony.

Notices were issued to the respondents i.e. present petitioners in this case. The learned Collector, Satna has found that present petitioners are

having liability to maintain the transmission lines. The accident took place and due to which the buffalo of respondent No.3 has died as the postmortem

report, police report photographs etc. are available on record.

Learned Collector, Satna has found that electricity is ""hazardous substance"" hence petitioners are covered under the provisions of the Act, 1991

and passed the order of payment for Rs.15,000/- as an compensation. Hence, present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.3 is having remedy to approach civil court to claim the compensation. It is a

matter of evidence that who is responsible for the accident.

The payment of compensation under the Act, 1991 is based on the concept of no fault liability while directing for payment of compensation in case

of any accident while using ""hazardous substance"", the fault is not liable to be examined. The amount payable under this act is liable to be adjusted in

an amount of compensation claimed in the civil suit. The similar issue came up consideration before this Court in case of Madhya Pradesh State

Electricity Board Vs. The Collector and Anr. AIR 2003 MP 156 in which it has been held that electricity is hazardous substance, hence, in any death

takes place due to the use of electricity, the generating company/transmission company is be liable to pay compensation.

""Hazardous Substance"" has been defined in Section 2(e) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, according to which it means any substance or

preparation which, by reason of its chemical or physico-chemicai properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings. Physicochemical

properties of electricity are definitely liable to cause harm to human beings and other living creatures, plants, micro-organism etc. Thus, it has to be

regarded as ""hazardous substance"" within the meaning given in Section 2(e) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and once when something is

hazardous irrespective of quantity, in my opinion it is not necessary for the Central Govt. to issue a notification as it is not necessary to notify

electricity as required in Section 2(d) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 as it is hazardous irrespective of its quantity. A thing which is known

as intensely hazardous has to be treated as hazardous substance so as to effectuate the purposes for the enactment of the Act of 1991. Whatever

irrespective of proportion is hazardous has to be treated as hazardous one. Some article may not be hazardous in small quantity but electricity is not

one of such article. Only those hazardous substances have to be notified which may be dangerous on exceeding such quantity then it becomes

necessary to specify the quantity. In my opinion it is not necessary for the electricity to be notified under Section 2(d) of the Act of 1991 as in any

quantity electricity is hazardous. It has to be taken as hazardous substance within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act of 1991. Section 2(d)of the

Act of 1991 does not have effect narrowing down the meaning of ""hazardous substance"" as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1986. Similar

question was answered in U.P. State Electricity Board (supra) and in M.P. State Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. Collector, Mandla, in W.P. No.

2165/2001, decided on 15-4- 2002. In U.P. State Electricity Board (supra), it was held in para 42 as under :-""42. Hence in my opinion, hazardous

substance' as defined in Section 2(d) of the 1991 Act is not to be confined to a substance specified in the notification issued by the Central

Government, but it includes all substances which come underthe definition of 'hazardous substance' under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,

with this exception that if any such substance is also notified by the Central Government under Section 2(d) of the 1991 Act then it will be a

'hazardous substance' only if it exceeds the quantity specified in the said notification. Thus the notification issued by the Central Government under

Section 2(d) of the 1991 Act can only narrow down the scope of 'hazardous substance' as defined under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, but

substances which are not specified in the said notification will nevertheless be regarded as 'hazardous substances' under the 1991 Act if they come

within the definition of 'hazardous substances' under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

In the case of M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur (supra), it was held as follows :--

On a reading of aforesaid two definitions it can not be construed that the substance which is not notified by the Central Government cannot be

regarded as a 'hazardous substance'. The terms used under Section 2(d) of the Act are of wide amplitude and of immense magnitude. They are not to

be understood in a narrow, restricted or confined manner. On the contrary, it covers a large canvas. The dictionary clause does not lay down a

postulate that unless a substance is notified it cannot be regarded as a hazardous substance. The definition in the Act refers to Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986. I have reproduced the aforesaid definitions hereinabove. The said definition is in a broad spectrum. It cannot be encompassed

in a small region. If both the definitions are read together it is quite pronounced that the electricity should come within the ambit and sweep of the

definition, and certain substances may become hazardous if they are notified as required under the provisions. Thus, notification by the Central

Government is not the sine qua non to make a substance hazardous.

Section 3(2) of the Act of 1991 speaks about the strictliability without fault in case of such accidents involving death due to hazardous substance

and it is not necessary for the claimant to plead and establish that the death, injury or damage in respect of which the claim has been made was due to

any wrongful act, neglect or default of any person. No policy was taken out by the Board. That will not affect the liability of the owner. The main

aims and objects of the Board to generate, transform and transmit the electricity and these are its activities. It cannot escape from its liability by saying

that no policy was taken by the Board.

I find no merit in the instant writ petition. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to

costs.

Hence, I do not find any infirmity, illegality in the impugned order. The petition is therefore, dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.