Madras High Court
Richard Suares vs Government Of Tamilnadu Rep. By ... on 5 January, 2005
ORDER K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. The petitioner prays for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation towards the death of the petitioner's daughter, who was aged 13 years, owing to electrocution on 13.4.2001.
2. The petitioner contends that his daughter died on 13.4.2001 due to electrocution arising out of negligence on the part of the respondents. She was studying VIII Standard in Doveton Corrie Girls' Higher Secondary School, Vepery, Chennai. On 13.4.2001, which was a Good Friday, the petitioner's family, along with the deceased, were returning home after attending the service at St. Andrews Church at about 11.15 a.m. The petitioner's daughter went to the Bakery for purchase of some biscuits and while walking on the side of the public road, she stepped into a puddle of water collected due to rain. A high voltage cable was left uncovered near the surface, as a result of which, the petitioner's daughter was electrocuted and died on the spot. First Information Report was filed at the Vepery Police Station and post mortem certificate was also issued, disclosing the cause of death as due to electrocution. The post mortem certificate was issued by the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, Chennai, on 14.4.2001.
3. The petitioner contends that the death was due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the respondents. The deceased was a bright student and the parents had great hopes and plans for her future. Their family was a poor middle class family and they had great hopes on the deceased, as well as they were deprived of her love and companionship. With the result, the petitioner had prayed for the compensation.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that disputed questions of facts were involved and hence, the petitioner ought to have approached the civil Court for appropriate relief. The exact location of the accident has not been indicated in the affidavit. Even on the statement of the petitioner that high voltage cable was lying uncovered, it is stated that such an occurrence could not have taken place during April, 2001. The accident could have occurred only due to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. If the deceased had crossed the road with proper care and attention, the accident could have been averted. Earlier, on the petitioner's representation, the respondent-Board had, by memorandum dated 18.2.2002, awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. However, the petitioner refused to accept it. There was no negligence on the part of the Electricity Board.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after stating the facts which led to the electrocution, contends that the respondents were governed by the principles of strict liability and hence, there was no justification for driving the claimants to go before the civil Court. The fact of electrocution is not denied by the respondents and hence, the respondents have no defence as regards their act of negligence, which had caused the death of the petitioner's daughter.
6. Mr. G. Vasudevan, learned counsel for the second respondent, contends that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner should be directed to go before the civil Court for establishing negligence as well as for quantum of compensation, if any.
7. I have considered the submissions of both sides.
8. The fact of death of the daughter of the petitioner due to electrocution is not seriously disputed, except for a formal denial in the counter affidavit. The fact remains that as a result of the death, the second respondent had, in fact, offered a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation by memorandum dated 18.2.2002. It is further pleaded by the second respondent that the accident could have occurred only due to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the fact that the deceased died only due to electrocution is not seriously disputed, apart from the fact that the post mortem certificate also reveals that the deceased died due to electrocution.
9. In the said background, the cause of death being electrocution, there is no further need to prove the cause of death. As regards negligence, it has been repeatedly held that in the matter of maintenance of electricity connections and power lines in public places, strict liability would arise as against the Electricity Board.
10. In PARVATI DEVI and Ors. v. COMMISSIONER OF JPOLICE, DELHI and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 754, the Supreme Court held that when once the fact of death was established, the authorities concerned must be held to have acted negligently and thus responsible for the death. That was also a case where the victim died on account of electrocution while walking on the road. The Supreme Court held that when once it is established that the death was on account of electrocution, the authorities have to be held as having acted negligently. The said conclusion was arrived at also on consideration of the obligation on the part of the Electricity Board under Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, whereunder, it is the duty of the Electricity Board to see to it that a proper devise should be adopted whereby if any electrical line gets snapped, the electrical line should be rendered harmless. Admittedly, the said requirement was not complied with in the present case.
11. In M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Ors. , the Supreme Court upheld the award of Rs. 4.34 lakhs by the High Court to the claimants. That was a case where a live wire got snapped and fell on the public road, which was inundated with rain water. Without noticing the same, a cyclist aged 37 years, while he was returning home at night, rode over the wire and he was instantaneously electrocuted. The Electricity Board contended that the electrocution was due to clandestine pilferage committed by a stranger unauthorisedly siphoning the electricity supply from the supply line. The Supreme Court held that the defence of the Electricity Board relying on the exception to a rule of strict liability, namely, the result of an act of stranger, cannot apply to the said facts of the case. The basis of the liability of the Electricity Board was the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity and cases of strict liability would differ from ordinary cases on account of the negligence or fault which could have been avoided by taking reasonable precautions. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, I am inclined to hold that the negligence on the part of the Electricity Board is clearly substantiated by the fact that while walking on a public road, the deceased was electrocuted, which could not have been avoided by the deceased by exercising care and caution.
12. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is seen that the deceased was a school going girl aged about 13 years and 8 months and she was studying VIII standard in a convent. The parents must have reposed considerable hope for a bright future of their daughter and have also lost the love and companionship of the deceased daughter. Considering the fact that she was a school going girl, it cannot be ignored that the deceased would have had a very bright future ahead of her and would have also been of considerable support to her parents and family. I am inclined to hold that it would be reasonable to fix a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation as on the date of the accident, namely, 13.4.2001. By adding a reasonable interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the said date, approximately, a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be due towards interest.
13. With the result, I am inclined to allow the writ petition by fixing a total compensation at Rs. 3,00,000/-. The respondents are directed to pay the said amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the respondents will be liable to pay 12% interest per annum on the said amount till the amount is paid to the petitioner.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.