AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2014 passed in W.P. (C) No. 353 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation on account of death of the wife of the petitioner caused due to electrocution. Further, respondent was directed to consider the matter relating to the payment of ex-gratia to the petitioner on account of the death of the petitioner''s wife in terms of the order dated 05.07.2008 passed by the State Government.
Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the facts giving rise to this appeal needs to be taken notice of which are as follows: -
On 30.12.2009, at about 4:30 p.m. while the deceased, the wife of the petitioner was returning home after collecting fire woods from the eastern hill-side of the Leingangching Village and reached a distance of about 200 metres away from the house, she came in contact with loose live L.T. electric wire which had fallen from the electric pole on the public road as a result of which she got electrocuted. She was immediately moved to hospital but there, she was declared dead.
On account of that, a complaint was lodged before the Officer in Charge of Waikhong Police Station, which was registered under G.D. No. 140/WKG-PS/10 dated 11.01.2010. The Officer in charge upon holding enquiry submitted a report to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District, informing about the death of the petitioner''s wife due to electrocution. At the same time, Assistant Engineer, Chandel Sub-division, Electricity Department also held enquiry relating to the Electrocution of the petitioner''s wife and after holding enquiry submitted a report which was annexed as Annexure-A/4 of the writ petition, mentioning therein that the deceased had suffered fatal injury. At the same time in one of the columns meant for mentioning causes leading to accident, it was mentioned as "BROKEN LIVE LINE". In such event of the death of the petitioner''s wife due to electrocution, the petitioner filed a representation before the authority for giving compensation, but when noting was done, the petitioner filed the writ petition wherein affidavit-in-opposition was filed taking a plea at para 4 that due to wind pressure and falling of trees on the line, live L.T. electric line was broken as a result of which the fateful accident took place. At the same time it was also stated in Para 13 that there was no report of broken wire, and the live L.T. line might have been broken due to wind pressure/lightning of thunder storms and such incident happening suddenly, it is denied that there is omission on the part of the official respondent.
In this regard, it has also been stated that since there was no information relating to the broken wire from the local men, repairing could not be done and that due to wind pressure and also due to lightning and thunder storms there happens to be breaking of wire. On such statement, the State resisted the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner for direction to the authority to pay compensation on the premise that facts need to be established by adducing evidences before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, and that writ forum would not be appropriate forum for deciding the matter which is in dispute.
However, the learned Single Judge did not accept the contention put forth on behalf of the State keeping in view the provision as contained in Section 25 of the Electricity Act, 2003 whereby the authorities are supposed to take suitable measures for protecting the public from dangers arising from generation, transmission, distribution or use of electricity supply or installation, maintenance or use of any electricity line and also reducing risk of personal injury to any person or damage to property of any person etc. and also in view of the somewhat inconsistent stand taken by the State, taking a plea on one hand of live wire broken on account of thunder storms or tree but on the other hand taking presumptive stand that electric live wire may have fallen on account of thunder storms, and thereby the learned Single Judge by placing reliance on number of decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court holding therein that due to action or inaction of the State or its officials if the fundamental rights of the citizens are infringed, liability of the State official and instrumentality is strict and thereby any claim raised for compensation cannot be denied taking a plea that damage can be claimed under the private law rather claim made for compensation on account of the reason stated above be made under the public law for compensating the claim for deprivation of rights and personal liberties. Learned Single Judge also put forth reliance on the decision rendered in a case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar, (2002) 2 SCC 162, wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as follows which needs to be reiterated hereunder.
"7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes 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 potentially of dangerous dimension the 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 look out 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.
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 or 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 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."
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances, and also principle laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- would be just and proper compensation to be paid by the respondents State apart from ex-gratia payment which the petitioner is entitled under the policy decision of the Government.
Being aggrieved with that judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred. Mr. S. Napolean, learned G.A. has never raised question over the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Court, however, his submission is over the propriety and legality of the order entertaining the writ application relating to compensation which according to him was awarded under the disputed question of fact which was required to be agitated before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Mr. S. Napolean, learned G.A. in order to push forth his point, has referred to a decision rendered in case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and others Vs. Sukamandi Das (Smt) and Another. By placing reliance upon this, Mr. S. Napolean, learned G.A. submitted that learned Single Judge should not have entertained the writ application rather the petitioner should have been directed to approach the Civil Court and thereby, it was prayed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Ms. G. Pushpa submits that the fact of the case upon which much reliance is being placed on behalf of the State is quite different from the fact of the instant case. In the case referred to on behalf of the appellants, the fact somewhat appears to be disputed whereas learned Single Judge keeping in view the inconsistent stand taken by the State vis a vis the case made out by the petitioner never found the case as that of disputed fact and thereby, the decision referred to on behalf of the State is never applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Further, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge, after taking into account the manner in which the petitioner''s wife died due to electrocution held that the petitioner under the public law is entitle to have compensation and thereby the order passed by the learned single never warrants to be interfered by the appellate court.
We, in the facts and circumstances, do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent. It be reiterated though in brevity that it is the case of the petitioner that while the petitioner''s wife was returning home after collecting fire woods, she came in contact with fallen loose live L.T. electric wire and got electrocuted and then succumbed to the injury. According to the case, it was suggestive of the fact that falling of the live electric wire was due to negligence on the part of the authorities, though, the authorities under the statute was required to maintain it, so that the life of the people may not be put to danger on account of electrocution. However, the State by putting affidavit-in-opposition tried to make out a case that it never happened on account of the negligence, rather it happened due to wind pressure and falling of the trees on the line. While making such statement, the authorities were never sure as to how the electric line got broken either due to wind pressure or on falling of the trees on the line which would appear from the statement made in para 13 wherein a fact which have been stated appears to be presumptive as it has been stated that live L.T. line may have been broken due to wind pressure, lightning, thunder storms.
Thus, it is quite evident that the affidavit was filed without ensuring as to how the electric line got broken. On the other hand the report of the Assistant Engineer, Chandel Sub-Division is there wherein in one of the column, it has been stated that it was the broken live line which caused the accident leading to the death of the deceased. Under the circumstances, we can easily record that it does not happen to be a case of disputed fact. In such situation, the decision rendered in case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and others Vs. Sukamandi Das (Smt) and Another as referred to on behalf of the State never appears to be applicable. It be stated that in that case, the compensation was sought for on the fact that while the deceased was returning home it starts raining, and then she came in contact with an electric line which was lying across the road after getting snapped from overhead electric line, and thereby it was pleaded that because of the negligence on the part of Grid Company and its officers it was not properly maintained and as such the incident occurred. Whereas, the stand which was taken on behalf of the State was that because of the thunder bolts and lightning, one of the conductors of the 12 watt L.T. line had snapped even though proper guarding was provided and as soon as the information regarding the snapping of line was received from the line helper residing in the Village Amara the power was disconnected. The officers of the appellant had thereafter rushed to that spot and had noticed that one shackle insulator had broken due to lightning and the conductor had also snapped from the shackle insulator along with guarding and the sub-station fuse had also been blown out. In such circumstances, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the High Court should have directed the writ petitioner to approach the Civil Court as disputed question of facts were involved in the writ petition. In such situation, it was observed that the High court has not and should not have held that dispute in this case was raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, it can easily be said that dispute is being raised for the sake of raising them as we have already indicated herein above that the State come forth with the case with presumptive facts, wherein the State took the stand that there may have been falling of the live wire on account of either storm, falling of trees or thunderbolts.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality with the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.