Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2290 (ALL)

RAHIM v. COLLECTOR, SULTANPUR

2008-11-18

RAJIV SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT RAJIV SHARMA, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur under section 6 of the Public Liabilities Insurance Act, 1991, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition wherein it has been held that the petitioner's son, who died due to electrocution, does not come within the purview of Section 2 (d) of the Act. It has also been held that the electricity protection, distribution etc. does not come within the purview of the hazardous substance. 3. In short the facts of the case are that the petitioner's son, namely, Arnin Ahmad, who was student of Class X in Nehru Smarak Inter College, was going through the village to attend the call of nature. In the village there is 11000 volt line which was going through the village and due to negligence (If employees of the concerned department, the wire was hanging, which the petitioner could not see and live wire touched his body, due to which he died on the spot. The petitioner No. 1 lodged a F.I.R. at P.S. Dhammaur, District Sultanpur, thereafter panchanama was prepared and the post-mortem examination was also conducted on the same day. 4. The action was brought by the parents of the son, i.e., petitioners by moving an application under section 6 of the Public Liabilities Insurance Act, 1991 for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs, before the District Magistrate on the ground that the electricity distribution also comes within the hazardous substance. 5. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the wire of the said line was hanging due to negligence and fault of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited as a result of which live electric wire touched his body and died on account of electrocution. The application of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the opposite party No. 1. Without considering the legal proposition and considering the vital fact that it was negligence in maintenance of electric wire, which do come within the hazardous substance. 6. In U.P. State Electricity Board v. V.M., Dehradun, 1 1997 (30) ALR 664. the wire came in contact with the trolley and caused the death of three workers and one members of the wedding procession on the spot. 6. In U.P. State Electricity Board v. V.M., Dehradun, 1 1997 (30) ALR 664. the wire came in contact with the trolley and caused the death of three workers and one members of the wedding procession on the spot. The family of the deceased made application to the District Magistrate, Dehradun, for compensation on which objections were invited from the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board. The District Magistrate, Dehradun decreed the claim of the applicant. The U.P. State Electricity Board assailed the order of the District Magistrate in a writ petition. This Court after considering various judgments of the Apex Court came to the conclusion that electricity is 'hazardous substance' as defined under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and there is no illegality in the order of District Magistrate, Dehradun allowing compensation. The Court also observed that Public Liabilities Insurance Act, 1991 is a beneficial legislation for a social objective and hence it should be given liberal interpretation. 7. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2 (1987) 1 SCC 395 the Hon'ble Supreme Court gone even beyond the rule of strict liability by holding that : "Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher." 8. Recently the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and others 3 2002 (46) ALR 448 (SC). observed that 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. 9. As the legal proposition is settled that electricity is 'hazardous substance'. Undoubtedly, if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who get unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the suffers is that of the supplier of the electric energy, the writ petition is decided at the admission stage itself with the consent of parties. 10. Undoubtedly, if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who get unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the suffers is that of the supplier of the electric energy, the writ petition is decided at the admission stage itself with the consent of parties. 10. Standing Counsel while defending the order passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur has not disputed the legal proposition settled by the various decisions. 11. Fro the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the District Magistrate is not legally sustainable and is liable to be quashed, which is hereby quashed. 12. The writ petition is allowed. The District Magistrate, Sultanpur is directed to consider the application of the petitioner in light of the observations made herein above and decide the claim for compensation expeditiously i.e., within a period of six months. Writ Petition Allowed.