Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 390 (GAU)

Sadullah v. Assam State Electricity Board

2008-05-29

BROJENDRA PRASAD KATAKEY

body2008
JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The Petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased Marian Nessa (Begum), by the present petition, is praying for a direction to the Respondent authorities to pay compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- for the death caused by electrocution because of the total negligence on the part of the Respondent authorities in maintaining the over head 11,000 vaults wire. 2. The case of the writ Petitioner in the present writ petition is that on 15.9.2006 at about 8 AM when his wife Marian Nessa (Begum) went to the agricultural field with the goats for feeding them grass, unknowingly she came into contact with the electrical live wire having high voltage, which was hanging at the accident site and as a result of which she got electrocuted and died on the spot. Further case of the Petitioner is that he immediately lodged an FIR with Chhaygaon Police Station on 15.9.2006 itself, on the basis of which Chhaygaon Police Station U.D. Case No. 13/ 2006 was registered on 16.9.2006, during investigation of which the dead body was sent for post mortem examination in Guwahati Medical College and Hospital and the Doctor, upon conducing such post mortem examination, has submitted the post mortem report with the opinion that the "death was due to Syncope resulting from electrical burn injuries during life." According to the Petitioner, the accident occurred due to the gross negligence of the Respondent authorities in maintaining such high voltage wire. 3. The Respondents on receipt of the notices entered appearance and filed the counter affidavit, wherein while admitting the incident has contended that there was no negligence on the part of the authorities in maintaining the line and the live conductor, which was snapped and being an aluminum conductor visible from a distance of 50 Meters, the victim ought to have noticed the same and avoided crossing such hanging wire and as such there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The further stand in the affidavit is that had that live conductor after it got snapped touched the earth, the protective device line DO fuse or breaker comes into operation and would have tripped due to fault of the line. The further stand in the affidavit is that had that live conductor after it got snapped touched the earth, the protective device line DO fuse or breaker comes into operation and would have tripped due to fault of the line. In the said affidavit it has further been pleaded that regular checking of the line was conducted by the authority and last checking was done on 14.9.2006 and no defect was noticed on such checking. In view of such dispute raised in the affidavit, the Respondents further prayed that since the disputed fact is involved in the writ petition, the relief sought for in the present petition cannot be granted as such dispute has to be resolved in a suit to be filed by the Petitioner. The Respondent in the affidavit has further contended that the Chief Electrical Inspector was informed about the accident vide communication dated 18.9.2006. 4. I have heard Mr. A. Mannaf, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B.D. Das, the learned Standing Counsel, ASEB as well as Mr. J. Sarma, the learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 5. This Court while admitting the writ petition vide order dated 1.2.2007 directed the Respondent No. 3, the Chief Electrical Inspector, Assam to furnish necessary information to this Court relating to the accident. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma, the learned State counsel during the course of hearing of the writ petition on 17.3.2008 has tiled a copy of the report dated 13.3.2008 (signed on 14.3.2008) of the Senior Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam. The case was adjourned on that day as the copy of such report was not made available to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the ASEB, who were served with the copy of such report on that date itself. Such course of action was taken as it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the ASEB Authority that the copy of the report has never been furnished to the ASEB Authority thereby depriving them from taking a decision as to whether any appeal under Section 162(2) of the Electricity Act. 2003 (in short, "the Act") is required to be filed. The case has accordingly been listed today for hearing. 2003 (in short, "the Act") is required to be filed. The case has accordingly been listed today for hearing. At the outset, the learned Standing Counsel, ASEB Authority has submitted that no appeal has been preferred by the ASEB Authority against the report submitted by the Senior Electrical Inspector as contemplated under Section 162(2)of the Act and the ASEB Authority is ready and willing to pay the compensation for the death of the Petitioner's wife caused on 15.9.2006 due to electrocution in terms of the Board's Office Memorandum dated 17.12.1996, i.e. a sum of Rs. 50,000/- keeping in view the age of the victim being 45 years. 6. It appears from the report submitted by the Senior Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam dated 13.3.2008 (signed on 14.3.2008) that there is no compliance of the provision of the Indian Electricity Rules, framed under the Act by the ASEB Authority or its successor electricity distribution company in the following manners: 1. The electrical installation consisting of sub-station and over head lines were not installed and protected in a manner to ensure safety under prevailing environmental condition in the area. 2. Recommendations of Bureau of Indian standard in relevant code of practices were not followed in installation and maintenance of over head lines and other installation. 3. The 33 KV/11 KV sub-station for the area was not protected and maintained by the owner of the installation to make it safe and free from danger. 4. The over head line was not protected with a device for rendering it dead and harmless after bursting of insulator support of the conductor. As noticed above, the ASEB Authority has not challenged the finding recorded by the Senior Electrical Officer by filing any appeal as contemplated as under Section 162 of the Act and, on the other hand, has accepted the violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules by agreeing to pay compensation, which according to the ASEB Authority, should be in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.12.1996. 7. That being the position, the contention of the ASEB Authorities in the affidavit that the allegation of negligence on the part of it is a dispute question of fact and hence, it has to be resolved in a suit not in a writ proceeding, cannot be accepted and hence rejected. 8. 7. That being the position, the contention of the ASEB Authorities in the affidavit that the allegation of negligence on the part of it is a dispute question of fact and hence, it has to be resolved in a suit not in a writ proceeding, cannot be accepted and hence rejected. 8. From the aforesaid admitted report of the Senior Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam, it is evident that the ASEB Authority was negligent in maintaining the 11,000 vaults wire over head line drawn on PSC aluminum conductors, as required precautions were never taken. Had those required precautions been taken by the ASEB Authority, the aluminum conductor even after it snapped would not have come down to such a level that anybody can came into contact of such live contractor. It is apparent from the report that the live aluminium conductor was hanging at a high of about 1200 to 1500 MM from the ground. The wife of the Petitioner came into contact with such live conductor and she was electrocuted solely because of the negligence on the part of the ASEB Authority in maintaining such line, as required under the Act and the Rules. The contention of the ASEB Authority in the affidavit that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as the victim ought to have noticed the electrical conductor, the same being the aluminium conductor, also cannot be accepted at all as it is the duty of the ASEB Authority to maintain such line as required under the Act and the Rules and the victim being a rustic villager, it is not expected that she would know the consequences of touching the live wire. Hence, it cannot be said that the victim was negligent. 9. That being the position, the next question which requires consideration is what would be the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the public law remedy. For awarding compensation in a writ proceeding, i.e. under the public law remedy, it is not required to go into the question - as to whether the victim was an earning person, who are the dependants on her income etc. The compensation under the public law remedy is awarded for the negligence on the part of the Respondent Authorities in maintaining over head line as required under the Act and the rules, which results in the death of the Petitioner's wise. The compensation under the public law remedy is awarded for the negligence on the part of the Respondent Authorities in maintaining over head line as required under the Act and the rules, which results in the death of the Petitioner's wise. The amount of compensation as fixed by the ASEB Authority vide Office Memorandum dated 17.12.1996 cannot be accepted as the basis for awarding compensation under the public law remedy. Moreover, the ASEB Authority apart from issuance of such Office Memorandum did not even come forward and pay that amount to the victim's family. Considering the extent of negligence on the part of the ASEB Authority as reflected in the report submitted by the Senior Electrical Inspector, I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- would be the appropriate compensation under the public law remedy payable to the Petitioner. It is also on record that, the deceased had left behind two minor children. 10. In view of the above, the Respondent/ASEB Authority, namely the Respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- to the Petitioner and aforesaid two minor children. The ASEB Authority is directed to deposit the said gum of Rs. 1,75,000/- to the Registry of this Court within a period of two months from today. The Registry, on such deposit, shall invest an amount of Rs. 65,000/- in the name of each of the minor children, namely Md. Mahibul Haque and Ms. Sahnaz Begum, in separate fixed deposit accounts in any nationalized bank having branch at Chhaygaon in the district of Kamrup, Assam with the condition that the said amount shall not allowed to be encashed till such minors attain the age of majority. The Registry shall release the remaining amount of Rs. 45,000/- to the Petitioner on being identified by the learned Counsel. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.