AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri B. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri D. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, the State Counsel Ms. D.D. Barman for respondent no. 4 and Shri M.Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A.M. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent no. 6/Chief Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. None has appeared for the Union of India, Respondent No. 5.
The facts as projected in the writ petition is that on 16.06.2011 the son of the petitioner who was aged about 24 years had died due to electrocution after he came into contact with a 220 K.V. High Voltage Electric line under the Power Grid Corporation India Ltd. According to the petitioner the high voltage wire was hanging loosely at about 10 ft. from the ground which was also earlier reported. However, on the fateful day, the son of the petitioner who was carrying a bamboo on his shoulder unfortunately came into contact with the wire and died on electrification. The petitioner has claimed that her son was earning an amount of Rs. 8,000/- approximately per month by cultivation and was the only bread winner of the family. The instant writ petition has been filed for a direction to pay compensation which has been quantified at Rs. 8 lakhs.
Though initially the APDCL and its officers were made party respondents, when it revealed that the owner of the line was the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., the Chief Manager of the Corporation was arrayed as the respondent no. 6.
Shri Chanda, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present accident comes within the ambit of strict liability and therefore his prayer for payment of compensation is fully justified. Relying upon the reported case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 the learned counsel submits that the Courts in India have adopted the doctrine of strict liability which was propounded in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher wherein the following observations were made:
"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."
The Hon'ble Apex Court has also took note of the fact that the said doctrine had undergone further change in India wherein the concept of "Absolute Liability" was introduced. Whereas in the application of the doctrine of Strict Liability certain exceptions are available, in the doctrine of Absolute Liability, no exceptions are available.
The learned counsel also refers the decision of this Court (Imphal Bench) in Soibam (O) Khomdonbi Devi v. State of Manipur and Others, reported in 2005 (Suppl) GLT 352 wherein compensation was granted in a electrocution case where it was found that the electric wire was hanging at a height of 5 ft. In that case the owner was the Electricity Department of the Government of Manipur.
Shri Ahmed, the learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand raises that serious disputes with the claim made in this petition. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 6 dated 02.06.2014, more specifically the averments made in paragraph 4 thereof, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the minimum ground clearance of 7.05 meters, which is the prescribed height was maintained in the particular electric line and therefore the version of the petitioner was not believable. If at all the death was caused due to electrification, it was because of the own negligence of the victim for which the respondent no. 6 or the Corporation as such cannot be saddled with any liability. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the issues involved in the case are factual in nature which are also disputed and this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be the appropriate forum for adjudication of such disputes. It is further submitted that in absence of concrete and trustworthy evidence, this Court would not be in a position to come to a finding and therefore not in a position to adjudicate the matter on merits. Shri Ahmed also placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
i. (1999) 7 SCC 298 Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das (Smt) and Another.
ii. (2005) 6 SCC 156 SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Others v. Timudu Orum.
In both the aforesaid cases, the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate disputed questions of facts have been discussed.
Rejoining his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the Report dated 27.08.2011 of the Officer In-charge of the concerned Police Station submits that as per the said Report the wire was found to be 14 to 15 ft. above the ground. He accordingly submits that the findings of this Report is not in conformity with the stand of the Corporation in the affidavit and therefore based upon this Report, the claim is justified.
The rival contentions of the learned Counsels have been duly considered and the materials before this Court have been carefully examined. The case in hand undoubtedly involves questions of facts which are disputed. Whereas the accident of electrocution may be an admitted position, whether such accident had taken place due to the negligence of the respondent-Corporation is seriously disputed. Under the existing statutes and rules holding the field, the electricity authorities are to maintain a prescribed height of the electricity line so that accidents of electrification do not take place. However, even after maintaining such prescribed height, if some accidents take place, it cannot be automatically said that such accident had taken place due to the negligence of the electricity authority. In the instant case, the question/arises for determination as to what was the height of the wire in question which has caused the accident. The version of the petitioner and that of the Corporation, as noted above differs. Even if the Report of the O.C. of the Police Station dated 25.08.2011 is taken up for consideration, another version regarding the height of the wire is introduced. Under such disputed questions of facts, this Court is of the opinion that exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the determination cannot be made on the merits of the dispute. Unlike a Civil Court, the scope for adducing evidence, cross-examination etc. is not available. Though reliance is sought to be placed on the Report dated 27.08.2011 of the O.C., in absence of giving a scope to the authorities to cross-examine the Officer In-charge, the contents of the Report, per se cannot be accepted as sacrosanct truth.
In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present is not a fit case wherein relief can be granted to the petitioner. However, this judgment will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum of law for redressal of his grievance. It is further made clear that since the petitioner was pursuing his remedies in an improper forum, the appropriate Court if so approached would consider the matter regarding delay.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.