Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd And Ors vs Sonali Som And Ors

[1] Heard Ms. S. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (TSECL for short) as she submits that she represents the case on behalf of Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta) who appears to be the advocate on record of the case. Also heard Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents.

[2] Briefly stated, Smt. Sonali Som (Sarkar) and Smt. Ankita Sarkar had instituted the instant suit being the wife and daughter of late Sujit Sarkar @ Kalu claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) due to the death of late Sujit Sarkar on 18.09.2012. The grounds for instituting the present suit as pleaded by the claimant-respondents are that, while they were returning back to their house and came near to the house of one Priya Ranjan Deb, they got electrocuted out of hook line which was connected to the house of Priya Ranjan Deb from the road side electric pole of the Corporation (TSECL) leading to the death of Sujit Sarkar. On the other hand, Ms. Nandi, learned counsel for the TSECL has submitted that said Priya Ranjan Deb had hooked the electric connection most illegally and negligently and according to her non-impleadment of Priya Ranjan Deb in the case is fatal to the instant suit. Ms. Nandi, learned counsel further submitted that a criminal case was registered against Priya Ranjan Deb under Section-304(A) of IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act. So, according to the learned counsel for the Corporation, the electricity department i.e. the TSECL should not be held to be negligent and responsible for the death of the husband of the claimant-respondent No. 1. To brush aside such submission of Ld. Counsel for TSECL, Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has submitted that it was the obligation cast upon the corporation to take enough care and precaution to prevent hooking of electric connection by any person.

[3] I have perused the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Suit No. 26 of 2014. The learned Judge had framed the following issues while deciding the suit as follows:

"(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature?

(ii) Whether Sujit Sarkar @ Kalu died on the night of Biswakarma Puja on 18.09.2012?

(iii) Whether Suit Sarkar @ Kalu suffered electrocution due to latches, negligence, actionable and criminal inaction on the part of the defendants?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff has suffered mental shock and agony due to death of Sujit Sarkar @ Kalu by electrocution?

(v) Whether the defendants are liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff as prayed for if so, what should be quantum of compensation?

(vi) Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief/reliefs?"

[4] The instant suit, filed by the plaintiff-respondents, is based on the plea that late Sujit Sarkar @ Kalu had suffered the accident due to actionable wrong on the part of the defendant-appellant on 18.09.2012. The corporation was wholly negligent in maintaining the electric line and did not make any effort to prevent the hooking of electric connection by any person by way of installing live wires.

[5] "Negligence" in common parlance means and implies „failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person‟. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act. Negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack of proper care in doing something, in short, it is want of attention and doing of something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do. Though sometimes, the word „inadvertence‟ sands and used as a synonym to negligence, but in effect negligence represents a state of the mind which however is much serious in nature than mere inadvertence. There is thus existing a differentiation between the two expressions-whereas inadvertence is a milder form of negligence, „negligence‟ by itself mean and imply a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which ought to bestow. Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person‟s conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. Five elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence: the existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care; a failure to exercise reasonable care; cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages; and proximate cause, a showing that the harm is within the scope of liability."

[6] The learned trial Judge had observed in his judgment that "it remains a fact that the responsibility regarding the maintenance and look after of the electric line depends solely on the Electricity Department. The evidence of the plaintiff side clearly shows that the Electricity Department was negligent and there was breach of duty on their part which resulted in the electrocution of the husband of the plaintiff No. 1."

[7] In the instant case, I have noticed that the appellant-corporation though contested the suit by filing written statement, but, did not adduce any evidence in support of their plea. It is settled proposition of law that where a party does not appear into witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side the case set up by him is not correct.[AIR 1999 SC 1441].

[8] I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of Ms. Nandi, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that what wrong had been committed, was committed by Priya Ranjan Deb, not by the Corporation. In this regard, the Apex Court has settled the issue in a case reported in AIR 2002 SC 551 and held thus:

"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 diverted line. It is the look out of the manager of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices."

[9] Regarding responsibility and the liability of the Electric Department, the Apex Court has specifically observed thus: [AIR 2002 SC 551]

"The responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality is statutorily conferred on the Electricity Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the Electric Energy. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. The Board is also liable under the strict liability rule."

[10] The aforesaid ratio is clearly applicable in the present case as it is the case of the defendant that the hook line installed by Priya Ranjan Deb from the L. T. Pole was responsible behind the cause of the accident. The husband of the claimant-respondent No. 1 died when he came in contact with the said hook line. In the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Others, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1162, (2009) 9 SCC 221: the Apex Court observed as under:

"Indisputably, grant of compensation involving an accident is within the realm of law of torts. It is based on the principle of restitution in integrum. The said principle provides that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. [See Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. [ (1880) 5 AC 25 ]."

[11] In the instant case, it is clear that the Electricity Corporation has failed to adduce any evidence in support of their claim that they discharged their duties and responsibilities vested upon them to maintaining, repairing etc. The TSECL being responsible for installation and generating electricity to its consumers is under statutory obligation. So, there is no reason, but to hold that the Electricity Corporation, the appellant herein, had miserably failed to discharge their duties, obligations and responsibilities towards its consumers as well as the general public.

[12] It reveals from the record that the plaintiff-respondents instituted the suit as indigent person. Keeping in mind the principle laid down in Malay Kumar Ganguly (supra) that a person is entitled to damages to the extent which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. Accordingly, compensation out of damage suffered by any one is not aimed to cause undue enrichment of the person so suffered. As such, considering the financial status of the plaintiff-respondents, in my opinion, apart from following the principle of multiplier and multiplicand, the award of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of each of the plaintiff-respondents due to the damage appears to be disproportionate. As such, in my opinion, substantial justice would be rendered to the plaintiff-respondents if they are awarded at Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 50,000/- each to the plaintiff-respondents Nos.1 & 2 respectively towards loss of love and affection, and the service which would have been rendered by the deceased.

[13] Thus, Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) only will be added to Rs.6,12,000/-(Rupees six lakhs twelve thousand) only, the compensation as determined by the learned Trial Judge against the head of damages. So, total award would be Rs. 6,12,000+1,00,000/- = Rs. 7,12,000/-. The said amount shall bear interest @6% per annum. Consequently, the award of compensation as quantified by the learned trial Judge to the tune of Rs. 8,12,000/- is modified and reduced to the extent as aforestated i.e. Rs. 7,12,000/- which would be paid by the appellant-corporation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. It is made clear that if the appellant-Corporation fails to deposit the entire amount in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in equal share within the time as stipulated above, then, the entire amount shall carry interest @9% per annum.

With the above modifications and directions, the present appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of.