Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 414 (PAT)

Bihar State Electricity Board v. Ramswarup Yadav

2006-05-04

AFTAB ALAM, NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2006
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. India is still considered by the economists as a developing country. Bihar is one of its poorest states. In the event, there are countless ways in which the poor in this State might die. Accidental electrocution, among them, is not unknown. Death by accidental electrocution is hardly surprising having regard to the very poor state of maintenance of electric fittings in private or public premises and an equally sorry state in which the Bihar State Electricity Board is able to keep its installations. But what is actually shocking is the callous and mindless attitude of the Board in such cases. It would try to completely deny such occurrence(s) and in that connection, it may go so far as to try to mislead the Court. 2. The case in hand, is one such instance. According to the writ petitioner, (respondent No. 1 in the appeal) around mid-day on 19.11.1997, he and his son were collecting vegetables grown on his piece of land. At that time, the 33 KVA electric line passing over their land suddenly snapped and fell on the ground. His son came in contact with the live wire and as a result he died of electric shock. He reported his sons death by electrocution at Lakhisarai Police Station giving rise to Lakhisarai (UD) P.S. Case No. 3 of 1997. The police found the body of the peasants son lying on the land where he had died. The inquest and the post-mortem held on the body of the deceased confirmed that death was due to electrocution. 3. The petitioner filed a writ petition claiming from the Board a compensation of Rs. 3,60,000.00 for the death of his son. The Board took the plea that no 33 KVA line passed over the land of the petitioner and hence, all the statements made by him were untrue. A little investigation by the Court revealed that an electric line actually passed over the land of the petitioner though it was not of 33 KVA but 11 KVA (equally lethal on coming in contact with human body). The board in its supplementary counter affidavit was forced to admit as follows: On enquiry, it was found that a 11 KVA electric line which starts from 33/11 KVA Power Sub Station, Lakhisarai (sic) which is Suryagarh Feader passes over the land of Ramswarup Yadav, Mohalla English, Lakhasarai. 4. The board in its supplementary counter affidavit was forced to admit as follows: On enquiry, it was found that a 11 KVA electric line which starts from 33/11 KVA Power Sub Station, Lakhisarai (sic) which is Suryagarh Feader passes over the land of Ramswarup Yadav, Mohalla English, Lakhasarai. 4. The learned Single Judge was naturally annoyed at the conduct of the Board and observed that the Board which was a statutory authority performing a public duty was expected to be more honest and forthcoming before the Court. 5. Once the basic facts relating to the manner and the cause of death of the petitioners son were resolved, it was contended on behalf of the Board that notwithstanding death resulting from electric shock, there would be no obligation to pay compensation unless it was established that the accident had taken place due to any negligence on its part. In support of the Contention, Mr. Dutta, Counsel for the petitioner (as his Lordships then was) relied on the two Supreme Court decisions referred to in the judgment of the Writ Court. The Writ Court, however, did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the Board. Pointing out the obvious, the learned single Judge remarked that if a wire carrying high voltage electric current and passing over hesitations snapped and fell on the ground without any apparent reason, then unless shown otherwise the inference would be that the mishap was the result of carelessness and laches on the part of the Board. The Writ Court concluded the discussions with the following observations: The irresistible conclusion of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioners son had died of shock in his field on account of snapping of electrical wire due to negligence of the respondents and, therefore, he is entitled for the compensation. 6. It accordingly directed the Board to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs. two lakhs and allowed the writ petition with a cost of Rs. 5,000.00 in view of the unfair stand of the respondents. 7. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha appearing in support of the appeal filed by the Board argued vehemently and at length that the Writ Court was in error in directing the Board to pay compensation. two lakhs and allowed the writ petition with a cost of Rs. 5,000.00 in view of the unfair stand of the respondents. 7. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha appearing in support of the appeal filed by the Board argued vehemently and at length that the Writ Court was in error in directing the Board to pay compensation. He submitted the finding that the accidental electrocution took place due to some negligence or carelessness on the part of the Board was inferential and more in the nature of a surmise. There was no material before the Court to justify the finding. 8. I am completely unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant. To my mind, in the facts of the case, the grant of compensation was a foregone conclusion. As to the amount of compensation and given the circumstances of the case, one may say that the Writ Court exercised a good deal of judicial restraint. Though discernably annoyed at the conduct of the Board, it did not enhance the amount of compensation for that reason. Even while awarding cost, it let off the Board with a rather modest sum of Rs. 5,000.00 in-stead of imposing some penal or exemplary amount as cost. 9. On going through the judgment of the Writ Court, I can not help commenting that this appeal should not have been filed. After its depricatable conduct before the Court, one should have expected the Board to show more grace and accept the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge but it deemed fit to take the matter in appeal. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by Mr. Jha and on a perusal of the judgment and order coming under appeal, I have no doubt that the judgment of the Writ Court calls for no interference in appeal. The appeal thus fails. 10. But before closing the records, I would like to add a few words of advise for the Board. In cases of accidental electrocution of the present kind, the Board must take a more reasonable if not humane stand. I am fully conscious of the financial and other constraints faced by the Board. The appeal thus fails. 10. But before closing the records, I would like to add a few words of advise for the Board. In cases of accidental electrocution of the present kind, the Board must take a more reasonable if not humane stand. I am fully conscious of the financial and other constraints faced by the Board. I am aware of the unfortunate reality that the Board is simply unable to maintain and operate its installations with strict application of the statutory safeguards or subject to safety measures followed by the highly developed and industrialized countries. A case of accidental electrocution of the present kind is neither the first nor unfortunately the last that would take place. Accidents should not happen, but they do. In such cases, the Board does not help anyone, least of all itself by taking an ostrich like position and denying the occurrence itself. This Court would advise the Board to take a more realistic, positive and helpful stand in the matter. It should issue necessary directions and ensure that whenever any accidental electrocution/electrical mishap takes place, a team of its local functionaries/Field Officers visits the spot. The team should first ascertain the source of mishap, whether it was the fittings at any private/public premises (not concerning the Board) or it was any of the installations of the Board. It should collect all the relevant details and should take down the statements of the family members of the victim, the neighbours or any other independent witnesses who might have seen the occurrence. A report should then be submitted to the local area Board and it should finally come to the Board for taking a decision with regard to prevention of such occurrence in future, payment of reasonable compensation to the victim/his heirs and any other related matters. In case the matter comes to Court, the materials collected by the team visiting the spot, its report and the decision taken on its basis should be placed for the scrutiny of the Court. 11. It is hoped and expected that the Board shall follow the guidelines suggested by the Court in letter and spirit. 12. In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed but with no order as to cost. Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 13 I agree.