Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3354/2016 on 23 November, 2021
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/29
GAHC010017512016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) 3354/2016
Anita Rabha
W/o Late Gobinda Rabha @ Gopal Rabha
Village - Geruapara, P.O. Dongpar,
P.S. Tamulpur, District - Baksa, Assam
...............Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL]
represented by the Chief General Manager, Bijulee Bhawan,
Paltanbazar, Guwahati - 01
2. The Executive Engineer, APDCL,
Baksa Electrical Division, Baksa, Assam
3. The Senior Electrical Inspector, Govt. of Assam
Rajgarh Road, Pub-Sarania,
Guwahati - 781003
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer
APDCL, Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division,
Tamulpur, District - Baksa, Assam
5. The Sub-Divisional Engineer, APDCL
Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division,
Tamulpur, District - Baksa, Assam
6. The Chief Executive Officer of Tamulpur Electrical Circle,
Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division, District - Baksa
7. The Electrical Inspector of Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division,
Tamulpur, District - Baksa
8. Sri Sabin Narzary
S/o Late Thaneswar Narzary
Village - Ghokmari, P.O. Kachubari,
Page No.# 2/29
P.S. Tamulpur, District - Baksa,
Assam, 789367
...................Respondents
Advocates :
For the petitioner Mr. A.T. Sarkar, Advocate For the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 Mr. K.P. Pathak, Standing Counsel, APDCL For the respondent nos. 3 and 7 Ms. M. Barman, Junior Government Advocate For the respondent no. 8 Ms. A. Neog, Advocate Date of judgment & order : 23.11.2021 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT & ORDER The subject-matter in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a claim for compensation lodged for the death of one Gobinda Rabha @ Gopal Rabha [hereinafter referred to as 'Gobinda Rabha', for easy reference] on the ground that his death had occurred in an electrical accident which took place on 31.03.2013 and due to non- disbursal of such compensation, a direction has been sought for to the respondent Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] authorities to grant adequate compensation.
2. The relevant background facts, in brief, leading to the institution of the writ petition, as found averred in the writ petition, are as follows :-
Page No.# 3/29 2.1 The petitioner is the wife of Late Gobinda Rabha. It has been stated that Gobinda Rabha was a daily-wage labourer. At around 02-00 p.m. on 31.03.2013, Gobinda Rabha was working at the top of a particular electric post near the Post Office at Tamulpur, at the instruction of a contractor named Sabin Narzary [the respondent no. 8], and was replacing one 11 KV electrical wire. Suddenly, an employee of the control room of APDCL, Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division, without informing any person, connected the electrical power to the wire concerned and as a result, Gobinda Rabha received electric shock which caused burn injuries on his person and he succumbed to his death later on. It has been stated that the autopsy doctor had opined that Gobinda Rabha died due to ante-mortem injuries caused by electrocution.
2.2 In connection with the death of Gobinda Rabha, a First Information Report [FIR] was lodged at the Tamulpur Police Station on 05.04.2013 and the same was registered as Tamulpur Police Station Case no. 61/2013 under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code [IPC].
Investigation was caused into the incident by the Investigating Officer [I.O.] and a final report was submitted by the I.O. of the case on 30.04.2016. Asserting that Gobinda Rabha was a daily-wage labourer and the sole bread-earner of his family, the petitioner, after the demise of Gobinda Rabha, submitted a representation before the respondent no. 4 on 09.04.2013 seeking a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the death caused to her husband asserting that the death of Gobinda Rabha was caused due to sheer negligence and lack of care for safety on the part of the respondent APDCL authorities. When no discernible action with regard to the matter of compensation was seen to have been taken by the respondent APDCL authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the direction, mentioned above.
3. Heard Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for the respondent authorities who have been impleaded as the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6; Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Government of Assam for the respondent nos. 3 and 7; and Ms. A. Neog, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8.
Page No.# 4/29
4. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the FIR lodged on 05.04.2013; the police report submitted in connection with Tamulpur Police Station Case no. 61/2013; the post-mortem examination report issued in respect of the deceased, Gobinda Rabha; and the representation submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no. 4 on 09.04.2013; to reiterate the facts averred in the writ petition. He has submitted that the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of his death and he left behind the petitioner and one minor daughter, who was just about 2 years at the time of the incident. The date of birth of the minor daughter is 28.01.2011. The deceased died on 31.03.2013 and the FIR was lodged immediately within five days thereafter i.e. on 05.04.2013.
4.1 By referring to the electrical accident inquiry report submitted by the respondent no. 3, Mr. Sarkar has submitted that the inquiry report has clearly revealed that there was no fault on the part of the deceased. The fault can be attributed only to the respondent APDCL authorities as the principal and to the respondent no. 8 who was a sub-contractor under the APDCL authorities for a contract-work in connection with which the deceased was working on the fateful day. The deceased was a worker under the respondent no. 8 and there was no denial about the said fact. The deceased was asked to climb on the electric post by the respondent no. 8 at the relevant time with the assurance that shutdown notice with due permission had been taken and the accident occurred due to sudden resumption of electricity at the 11 KV line where the deceased was working.
4.2 It is his further submission that situated as such, the fault and contraventions of the relevant safety regulations are entirely attributable to the respondent APDCL authorities and the respondent no. 8. In support of his such submissions, he has relied on the decisions in Ranjita Nath vs. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and others, reported in [2019] 2 GLR 264; Kiran Das vs. State of Assam, reported in [2014] 5 GLR 617; M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and others, reported in [2002] 2 SCC 162; M.C. Mehta and another vs. Union of India and others, reported in [1987] 1 SCC 395; and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and others, reported in [2011] 14 SCC 481.
4.3 Mr. Sarkar has also referred to various office memoranda issued by the APDCL for Page No.# 5/29 award of compensation to the victims of electrical accident.
5. Ms. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate has submitted that after the electrical accident was reported to the respondent no. 3, an inquiry was conducted by the respondent no. 3 under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and thereafter, the inquiry report of electrical accident was submitted, which has been annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3.
6. Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent APDCL authorities has submitted that though the factum of death of the deceased is not a disputed fact but the relevant issue is whether the deceased died due to any kind of fault attributable to the respondent APDCL authorities. He has submitted that the deceased was not an employee under the respondent APDCL authorities. As it clearly appears from the averments in the writ petition, the deceased was engaged by a sub-contractor with whom the respondent APDCL authorities had no privity of contract. The respondent APDCL had awarded the contract-work to one contractor for shifting of 11 KV/33 KV, LT line & sub-station & distribution by construction of new 11 KV/33 KV, LT line & sub-station vide a work order dated 31.12.2010 and it was the responsibility of the said contractor to carry out the said contract-work, as is evident from the work order. There was no provision for engagement of a sub-contractor and as such, the respondent APDCL authorities have no responsibility for the death caused to the deceased, who was engaged in an unauthorized manner.
6.1 He has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that it was not established by the claimant i.e. the writ petitioner that under what circumstances the death had taken place. As the respondent APDCL authorities are disputing the factum of death of the deceased due to any fault or negligence on their part, it would be improper on the part of the Court to entertain this writ petition. As no evidence is led by either of the parties, the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided properly only on the basis of the averments made in the affidavits.
6.2 In support of his submissions, Mr. Pathak has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Page No.# 6/29 Supreme Court of India in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and others vs. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and another, reported in [1999] 7 SCC 298 and SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and others vs. Timudu Oram, reported in [2005] 6 SCC 156. It is his further submission that though the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and others, reported in [2002] 2 SCC 162, has referred to the concept of strict liability to award compensation in an appropriate case but the fact situation obtaining in Shail Kumari [supra] is not applicable to the case in hand because the said decision was rendered in a proceeding which originated from the civil court. Though in the case in Ranjita Nath [supra], rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, compensation was awarded in a case of similar nature but the same cannot be pressed into the service by the petitioner as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sukamani Das [supra] and Timudu Oram [supra] were not considered therein.
6.4 It is his further contention that there is an exception to the concept of strict liability in that if the alleged act had occurred due to an act of a stranger then in such situation, the strict liability principle is not applicable.
6.5 It is also one of his contentions that the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased is relatable to the contract-work awarded to one contractor, M/s RMS Technology Private Limited and as such, M/s RMS Technology Private Limited is a necessary party- respondent in this proceeding. As the said contractor has not been made a party in this proceeding, the determination of the relevant issues including the matter of compensation cannot be decided in the absence of such a necessary party.
6.6 It is his further submission that, be that as it may, the respondent APDCL has notified through various office memoranda issued from time to time on the subject-matter of award of compensation in respect of electrical accidents and also about the quantum of compensation but the said office memoranda are applicable only when it is established that the accident is attributable to the fault/negligence of the APDCL. He has placed a copy each of the APDCL [Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents] Regulations, 2019 and the Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019, wherein, the subject-matter of award of compensation in Page No.# 7/29 relation to electrical accident has been dealt with. It is also his contention that in the event a decision is arrived at that the APDCL authorities are responsible for the award of compensation then it would be the office memorandum prevailing at the time of the death quantifying the amount of compensation which would be applicable. In support of his said submission, he has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Tamil Nadu vs. M/s Hind Stone and others, reported in [1981] 2 SCC 205.
7. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their respective pleadings.
8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to state the foundational facts and thereafter, to refer to the stands taken by the parties in their affidavits and to note the facts emerging from the documents annexed thereto.
9. The death of Gobinda Rabha was reported to the Officer In-Charge, Tamulpur Police Station on 05.04.2013 through an FIR lodged by the petitioner i.e. the wife of the deceased. In the said FIR, the petitioner as the informant had reported that at around 02-00 p.m. on 31.03.2013, the deceased was working at a place near the Post Office within Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division under the contractor, Sri Sabin Narzary [the respondent no. 8]. At that time, he was replacing 11 KV electric wire by climbing at an electrical post. It was reported that while the deceased was so working, the employee in the control room of Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division made the electrical power connected to the wire where the deceased was working and as a result, the deceased got electrocuted at the top of the electric post. After registration of the FIR as Tamulpur Police Station Case no. 61/2013 under Section 304A, IPC, the matter was investigated into. While returning the case by a Final Report no. 65/2016 dated 30.04.2016, the I.O. of the case mentioned that the deceased, at the time of the incident, was working on the electrical line and suddenly, some employee of Tamulpur Sub- Division of the erstwhile ASEB, presently APDCL, opened the line and as a result, Gobinda Rabha fell down with electric shock injuries. Gobinda Rabha in an injured condition was immediately taken the Tamulpur PHC but the doctor at Tamulpur PHC referred him to the Page No.# 8/29 Guwahati Medical College & Hospital [GMCH], Guwahati for better treatment. Gobinda Rabha was thereafter, taken to the GMCH where he succumbed to his injuries. Inquest over the dead body was done by the I.O. and thereafter, the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was performed at the GMCH. As per the post-mortem examination report, which was conducted on 01.04.2013, the death of the deceased was due to syncope as a result of ventricular fibrillation due to electrical injuries sustained during life. In the post- mortem examination report, four electrical burn injuries were reported.
10. The respondent no. 8, in the affidavit-in-opposition, has averred that the respondent APDCL issued an work order in favour of one M/s RMS Technology Private Limited on 31.12.2010 for "shifting of 11 KV; LT line & Distribution Sub-Station by construction of new 11 KV; LT line & Sub-Station and then dismantling the existing ones including dismantling & re-fitting of existing service connection on both sides of Tamulpur-Daranga road from 30 km point to 48.60 km point under Deposit work of APDCL (LAZ)" ['the contract-work', for short]. The contractor, M/s RMS Technology Private Limited had, in turn, engaged the respondent no. 8 as a sub-contractor for the aforesaid contract-work awarded by the respondent APDCL. The respondent no. 8 had admitted that the deceased was working on a daily wage basis with him and on the date of the occurrence, the deceased along with other daily-wage workers was working at the contract-work site at Tamulpur. The respondent no. 8 has contended that all the safety equipments such as gloves, rubber shoes, safety belts, ladders, earthing devices, helmets, etc. were provided by him to all the workers including the deceased, working at the contract-work site. He has referred to the terms and conditions of the work order, more particularly, Clause 5.5. thereof. As per Clause 5.5. of the work order, the APDCL and its officials had the responsibility to ensure effective and smooth implementation of the contract-work. It was the responsibility of the APDCL and its officials to arrange shutdown of APDCL [LAZ], charged line and or sub-station from the concerned authority after observing all necessary formalities as and when asked by the contractor to facilitate construction work by way of power interruption which should ordinarily be minimum as practical. According to the respondent no. 8, he before operating the work, had requested the APDCL employees of Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division who was present and supervising at the contract-work site to shutdown the electricity supply. The APDCL employee of Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division then Page No.# 9/29 informed the In-charge of the control room of Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division over telephone to shutdown the electricity supply during the progress of the work. But, the In-charge of the control room of Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division resumed the electricity supply unilaterally prior to the time-slot given by the respondent no. 8 while the deceased was working on the top of the electricity post and was replacing 11 KV electrical line. As a result of such unilateral resumption of electricity supply, the deceased got electrocuted and he succumbed to his injuries sustained due to electrocution. It is the assertion of the respondent no. 8 that the shutdown of electricity was the responsibility of the employees at the contract-work side and of the office of Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division, APDCL and the accident occurred due to lack of co-ordination amongst the employees of Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division, APDCL present at the contract-work site and in the control room of Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Division. By alluding so, the respondent no. 8 has put the burden and responsibility on the part of the respondent APDCL authorities attributing negligence on their parts for sudden resumption of electricity at the contract-work site.
11. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 which has been filed through the Chief General Manager [DNS], Lower Assam Region, APDCL, they have admitted about receipt of the electrical accident inquiry report submitted by the respondent no. 3 and also about the contents thereof. It is the stand of the respondent APDCL authorities that the deceased was working under the sub-contractor i.e. the respondent no. 8 on 31.03.2013 and was working on the electrical feeder shifting work. It has been stated that the respondent no. 8 had taken shutdown of 11 KW KV Bhutan Feeder at about 11-55 a.m. and returned back at about 12-30 p.m. However, there was no power at about 12-30 p.m. due to the shedding from 132/33 KV Chirakundi Grid Sub-Station. Thus, the line did not charge at that moment. However, even after returning the shutdown of 11 KV Bhutan Feeder, all workers of the respondent no. 8 kept on working and the deceased climbed up on the P.S.C. pole which caused the electrical accident. By stating so, it is contended that the negligence, fault and contravention of relevant safety regulations were on the part of the deceased as well as the respondent no. 8. It is contended that disputed questions of fact are involved which can only be adjudicated by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable Page No.# 10/29 in a case of such nature.
12. From the electrical accident inquiry report, annexed to the affidavit of the respondent no. 3, it is found that the inquiry was conducted under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003. While conducting the inquiry the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector was assisted by an Electrical Inspector. The detailed electrical accident report and the post-mortem examination report were taken into consideration. Statements of eye-witnesses were recorded during the course of the inquiry. With regard the circumstances which led to the accident, it had been reported that the electrical contractor, the respondent no. 8 engaged four persons for shifting a 11 KV overhead line viz. Bhutan Feeder at Tamulpur. While those four engaged persons were working for shifting the line, one of them viz. Gobinda Rabha climbed on one of the posts supporting the 11 KV line. When Gobinda Rabha was holding the 11 KV line for making connection at the top of the post he fell down suddenly from the top of the post and though he was taken to the hospital thereafter he was declared dead by the doctor. With regard to the causes leading to the accident, the report had mentioned that the respondent no. 8 took shutdown from the APDCL from 11-55 a.m. to 12-30 p.m. for carrying out the line shifting work. The respondent no. 8 engaged four persons including the deceased for shifting 11 KV Bhutan Feeder overhead line. But the deceased had no permit, issued by any competent authority, to work upon such electrical installation like the 11 KV Bhutan Feeder overhead line in the case in hand. It was reported that during the course of line shifting work, the deceased climbed up on one of the posts without any gloves, rubber shoes, safety belts, helmets and the like, for protecting him from mechanical and electrical injury. The four persons had not even earthed the line prior to starting the work of line shifting. The contractor returned the shutdown on 12-30 p.m. but allegedly without informing his workers engaged on the line shifting work. The 11 KV Bhutan Feeder line could not be charged at that time, due to shedding from 132/33 Chirakundi Grid Sub-Station, which used to feed power to the 33/11 KV Tamulpur Sub-Station from where the 11 KV Bhutan Feeder gets power. In such situation, the deceased was working on the line at the top of the post without getting any electric shock. But after some time, 11 KV Bhutan Feeder was charged as soon as 33 KV Tamulpur Feeder was charged from 132/33 KV Grid Sub-Station and as a result, the deceased got electric shock from the live conductor of the line and fell down on the ground.
Page No.# 11/29
13. The electrical accident inquiry report had noted that there were contraventions of the provisions of Central Electricity Authority [Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply] Regulations, 2010 and the contravened provisions which had been reported by the report are as follows :-
Regulation 19[1] : Before any conductor or apparatus is handled, adequate precautions shall be taken, by earthing or other suitable means, to discharge electrically such conductor or apparatus, and any adjacent conductor or apparatus if there is danger therefrom, and to prevent any conductor or apparatus from being accidentally or inadvertently electrically charged when persons are working thereon. Regulation 19[2] : Every person who is working on an electric supply line or apparatus or both shall be provided with tools and devices such as gloves, rubber shoes, safety belts, ladders, earthing devices, helmets, line testers, hand lines and the like, for protecting him from mechanical and electrical injury and such tools and devices shall always be maintained in sound and efficient working condition. Regulation 29[1] : No electrical installation work, including additions, alterations, repairs and adjustments to existing installations, except such replacement of lamps, fans, fuses switches, domestic appliances of voltage not exceeding 250V and fittings as in no way alters its capacity or character, shall be carried out upon the premises of or on behalf of any consumer, supplier, owner or occupier for the purpose of supply to such consumer, supplier, owner or occupier except by an electrical contractor licensed in this behalf by the State Government and under the direct supervision of a person holding a certificate of competency and by a person holding a permit issued or recognized by the State Government.
14. From a combined reading of Regulations 19[1], 19[2] and 29[1], it can be gathered that before any conductor or apparatus is handled, adequate precautions are to be taken, by earthing or other suitable means, to discharge electrically such conductor or apparatus in order to prevent any conductor or apparatus from being accidentally or inadvertently electrically charged when persons are working thereon. Every person who is working on an electric supply line or apparatus or both shall be provided with tools and devices such as Page No.# 12/29 gloves, rubber shoes, safety belts, ladders, earthing devices, helmets, line testers, hand lines and the like, for protecting him from mechanical and electrical injury and such tools and devices shall always be maintained in sound and efficient working condition. It is inter-alia provided that no electrical installation work including additions, alterations, repairs and adjustments to existing installation, except in relation to certain items indicated therein, shall be carried out upon the premises of or on behalf of any supplier, owner or occupier except by an electrical contractor properly licensed and under the direct supervision of a person holding a certificate of proficiency and a person holding a proper permit.
15. Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has prescribed that if any accident occurs inter alia in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such authorities as the appropriate Government may by order direct. The Electrical Inspector is empowered to inquire as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity. The phrase, 'such person' appearing in the said provision is the licensee and in the present case, it is the APDCL.
16. The Respondent no. 3 who is empowered under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to inquire into such an incident which occurred on 31.01.2013 resulting ultimately into the death of a human life and to submit a report, conducted an inquiry in respect of the electrical accident in question and thereafter, had submitted the electrical accident inquiry report wherein the contraventions of the Regulations, 2010 which had occurred at the site in connection with the contract-work, have been mentioned.
17. As per sub-section [3] of Section 161, every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub-section [2] shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Page No.# 13/29 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and every person required by an Electrical Inspector is legally bound to do so. Sub-section [2] of Section 162 has provided for an appeal which shall lie from a decision of a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector to the Appropriate Government or to an Appropriate Commission, as the case may be, if anyone is aggrieved by the decision.
18. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent APDCL authorities that in Sukamani Das (Smt) and another [supra] and Timudu Oram [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that where disputed questions of facts are involved with regard to an electrical accident, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy. On perusal of the said two decisions, it is found that contentions were raised on behalf of the licensee or the supplier of electricity in those cases to the effect that it was not established by the claimants that the deaths had occurred due to negligence on the part of the licensee or the supplier of electricity and though the deceased persons had died due to electrocution, the causes of such deaths could not be gone into on the basis of the affidavits only. It has been contended by Mr. Pathak that pari materia provisions like Section 161 and Section 162 in the Electricity Act, 2003 were also in existence in Section 33 and Section 36 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and despite existence of such pari materia provisions in the Electricity Act, 1910, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the proper remedy to claim compensation in connection with electrical accidents. Having regard to such contention advanced, the decisions in Sukamani Das (Smt) and another [supra] and Timudu Oram [supra] of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have been carefully gone through. It is noticed that there is no mention of the provisions of Section 33 and Section 36 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 in the said two decisions nor there is any mention as to whether the statutory authority i.e. the Electrical Inspector who was empowered under Section 33 of the Electricity Act, 1910 to inquire into such electrical accidents, had inquired into the electrical accidents and submitted any inquiry reports. On further perusal, it is seen that the petitioners therein had claimed compensation alleging negligence on the part of the supplier of electricity and the supplier of electricity had disputed the same with the contention that no negligence Page No.# 14/29 could be attributable to it for such death. It was in such fact situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that such disputed questions of facts could not be gone into in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to determine the liability or to find out negligence or otherwise and has held that the High Court should have directed the petitioners therein to approach the civil court.
19. What is, thus, distinctly noticeable from the decisions in Sukamani Das (Smt) [supra] and Timudu Oram [supra], relied on by the learned standing counsel for the respondent APDCL authorities, is that there is no mention of any inquiry report by the electrical inspector. In the present case, the causes leading to the accident resulting into the death of the deceased have been inquired into by the statutory authority, empowered under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to inquire into such kind of electrical accident, and after inquiry, has submitted an inquiry report. The inquiry report has adverted to the factual background which led to the accident and the contraventions that had occurred at the time of the accident resulting into the death of the deceased. During the inquiry, the place of electrical accident was visited, witnesses were examined and relevant documents were perused by the inquiry officer. The officials of the APDCL also participated in the inquiry.
20. What is also distinctly noticeable is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sukamani Das (Smt.) [supra] and Timudu Oram [supra] did not deal with the concept of strict liability. In M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and others , reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 , the facts were that a live wire got snapped and fell on the public road which was partially inundated with rain water. Not noticing that wire, a cyclist while returning home at night rode over the wire which snapped him and he was instantaneously electrocuted. A claim for damages made by the dependents of the deceased was resisted by the appellant State Electricity Board on the ground that the electrocution was due to the clandestine pilferage committed by a stranger unauthorizedly siphoning the electric energy from the supply line. It has been observed that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity Page No.# 15/29 transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to its private property and that electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, 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.
21. In the Shail Kumari [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also observed as under :-
"8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions."
22. The fact situation obtaining in the case of Ranjita Nath [supra] were to the following effect : one Electrical Contractor had engaged the victim in the line stretching work and the contractor did not get the 11 KV line shutdown by the APDCL which existed on the poles to which the stretched lines were supposed to be fastened. The victim was a layman and had no Page No.# 16/29 knowledge of electricity. The victim was stretching the conductor/wire with bare hands. He was not given any tool or devices for protecting himself from electrical injury. When the wire which the victim was holding for stretching came in contact with the live 11 KV line conductor that became live and as a result, the victim i.e. the husband of the petitioner got electric shock and ultimately died of electrocution. The inquiry report mentioned that there were contraventions of three provisions of the Central Electricity Authority [Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply] Regulations, 2010, namely, Regulations 19[1], 19[2] and 19[3].
22.1. The Court took note of the fact that the inquiry was conducted under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer reported that the deceased died due to electrocution which had occasioned because of the contraventions of the provisions of 2010 Regulation. The decision in M.P. Electricity Board [supra] was referred to and Court had also took note of the doctrine of strict liability which had its origin in English common law. The Court also took notice of the decision in M.C. Mehta [supra] and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, reported in [2011] 14 SCC 481, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dwelt at length on the concept of constitutional tort and compensatory jurisprudence. After holding so, the Court in Ranjita Nath [supra] had worked out and directed payment of an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation amount to the petitioner therein who was the wife of the victim. The fact situation obtaining in Ranjita Nath [supra] is quite similar to the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand.
23. The principle of strict liability has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kiron Das vs. State of Assam and others, reported in [2014] 5 GLR 617. It has been observed therein that normally as a general rule, claims of compensation based on tortious liability are decided by way of private law remedy in the civil court of competent jurisdiction. But in a case of loss suffered because of admitted negligence in the discharge of statutory duty by a public authority, there can be no bar to invoke the public law remedy and for a writ court to entertain a claim of compensation for such loss. Considering the public character of the duties carried out by the erstwhile ASEB and its successor companies, it cannot escape from the adverse consequence which may arise or occur in the discharge of its duties by applying the principle of strict liability. Examining the concept of strict liability and the decisions rendered Page No.# 17/29 by the Indian Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench has observed that the concept of strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendant's activity rather than on any negligence. There are many activities which are so hazardous that it may constitute a danger to the person or property of another. The principle of strict liability is based on the proposition that one who undertakes such activities has to compensate for the damage caused by him irrespective of any fault on his part. Thus, in a case where the principle of strict liability applies, the party undertaking such activities has to pay damages for the injury caused to the victim even though the party may not have been at any fault.
24. Under the concept of strict liability, one party is legally responsible for the consequences resulting from an activity even in the absence of fault or negligence. In essence, as per the concept of strict liability, a party will be held responsible for its actions, without the other party who has suffered, having to prove the fault or negligence on the part of the first party. When a person/party is involved in inherently dangerous or hazardous activities, then such person/party may be held liable if any other person/party is injured because of such activities, even if the first person/party had taken necessary precautions and followed the requisite safety requirements.
25. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, reported in [1987] 1 SCC 395, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India discussing the rule of strict liability, has observed as under :-
"Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the 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 vs. Fletcher."
26. The principle of vicarious liability can be stated to be the principle which is used to enforce strict liability on someone who does not bear the primary responsibility, that is, someone who is normally not at fault. Thus, the principle of vicarious liability affixes liability Page No.# 18/29 on one person for the act done by another person. In order to bring in the rule of vicarious liability for holding a person liable for the act done by another person, it is a requisite that there should be a certain kind of relationship between the two persons and the act allegedly done which gave rise to an action/claim by a third party, should be connected to the relationship. The relationship in existence between the respondent APDCL and the respondent no. 8 was that of an employer and a sub-contractor. The respondent no. 8 was a sub- contractor under one M/s RMS Technology Private Limited to whom the contract-work was awarded for execution and a work-order dated 31.12.2010 was given. The work-order dated 31.12.2010 had laid down the terms and conditions of the contract-work. It is contended during the hearing by the respondent APDCL authorities that there was no privity of contract with the respondent no. 8 but such a stand has not been pleaded in filed by the respondent APDCL authorities in its pleadings. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the stand that has been taken by the respondent APDCL authorities is that the deceased on 31.03.2013 was working under the respondent no. 8 as a worker, who was working on the electrical feeder shifting work. The facts that the respondent no. 8, as taken in his counter affidavit, was working at the contract-work site with his workers including the deceased, in the presence of and under the supervision of the APDCL employees have not been denied by the respondent APDCL authorities. It is not pleaded at any point of time that the respondent no. 8 had no privity of contract either with the APDCL or the contractor. Rather, the respondent APDCL authorities had acknowledged the fact that the respondent no. 8 was working at the contract-work site with the knowledge of the APDCL authorities. The APDCL authorities have tried to avert the liability by contending that the respondent no. 8 had engaged his workers in the contract- work site without complying the safety regulations and he had failed to inform shutdown duly to the APDCL employees at the control room. It has been sought to contend that such defaults on the part of the respondent no. 8 had resulted in the mishap. The work-order had specifically mentioned that the APDCL and its officials had the responsibility to ensure effective and smooth implementation of the contract-work and also to arrange shutdown from the concerned authority after observing all necessary formalities as and when asked by the contractor to facilitate construction work by way of power interruption. The general rule that an employer is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor is subject to the exception that an employer is liable in cases of strict liability. The deficient nature of activities which led Page No.# 19/29 to the death of the victim were clearly contributory acts and also composite acts on the part of the APDCL authorities and the respondent no. 8. The respondent no. 8 is clearly not a stranger to the APDCL authorities. In such fact situation, the respondent APDCL authorities are liable under the rules of strict liability and vicarious liability.
27. A boat accident took place at Sursagar Lake in Vadodara, Gujarat, when a boat carrying 38 passengers overturned resulting in death of 22 passengers by drowning. Sursagar Lake was under control and management of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and the contract for plying the boats at the Lake for joy rides was given to a third party contractor whose officials had allowed 38 passengers in the boat which had the capacity of only 22 passengers. Over and above, no lifeguards and saving jackets were provided to the passengers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs. Purshottam V. Murjani and others, reported in [2014] 16 SCC 14 had observed that the Municipal Corporation had statutory duty to supervise the boating activities at the Lake and mere appointment of a contractor or employee for carrying out such activities could not absolve the corporation of its liability. It had been held that the Municipal Corporation cannot exonerate itself from the liability on the ground that contract for plying boats was given to a contractor who only was responsible for boating activities of plying boat and any consequent accident. The Corporation had duty to care, when activity of plying boat was inherently dangerous and there was clear foreseeability of such occurrence unless precautions were taken like providing life saving jackets and lifeguards which were absent in the said case. Although the said case arose out of a complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the principle of vicarious liability applied therein is also found applicable to the case in hand.
28. From the facts emerged from the pleadings of the parties, it is an admitted position that on the date of the incident, the deceased was working under the respondent no. 8. The respondent no. 8 has admitted that the deceased was working under him at the relevant time and was working at the contract-work site. The respondent no. 8 has further admitted that he was working as a sub-contractor under one M/s RMS Technology Private Limited who was entrusted with the contract-work by a work order dated 31.12.2010. In the work order, the Page No.# 20/29 terms and conditions of the contract-work including the scope of work and responsibilities of the parties have been outlined. As per Clause 5.5 thereof, it was the responsibility of the respondent APDCL and its officials to ensure effective and smooth implementation of the contract-work which included arranging of shutdown of charged line and or sub-station from concerned authority after observing all necessary formalities as and when asked for by the contractor to facilitate construction work by ensuring that the power interruption was minimum as practical. Responsibility had also been entrusted to the officials of the respondent APDCL to supervise the work regularly and to ensure the work quality as per the standards and specifications. In view of the Central Electricity Authority [Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply] Regulations, 2010, it was incumbent of the part of the licensee as well as any contractor working on any work under the licensee to follow the safety regulations while working on any work of electrical supply.
29. It is an admitted position that the respondent APDCL authorities had received the copy of the electrical accident inquiry report submitted by the respondent no. 3, who is the statutory authority and were also aware of the contents thereof. No appeal has been preferred against the said electrical accident inquiry report which they have stated to have received along with the affidavit of the respondent no. 3 dated 04.12.2018.
30. One of the Regulations has prescribed that every person working on an electric supply line shall be provided with safety equipments such as gloves, rubber shoes, safety belts, ladders, earthing devices, helmets, etc. It has been established that the respondent no. 8 was working as a sub-contractor at the contract-work site and he did not provide gloves, rubber shoes, safety belts, ladders, earthing devices, helmets, etc. to the deceased whom he had engaged to work at the site and made him to climb on electric pole. Obligations were upon him to ensure shutdown in coordination with officials of the respondent APDCL authorities and the contractor. He has admitted that there was lack of coordination and miscommunication which resulted in the electrical accident due to charging of the 11 KV Bhutan Feeder line. The respondent APDCL authorities did not deny the involvement of the respondent no. 8 in their affidavits-in-opposition though it was orally submitted that there was no privity of contract between the respondents APDCL and the respondent no. 8. The Page No.# 21/29 statements in the affidavit-in-opposition is to the effect that at the relevant time, the deceased was working under the sub-contractor i.e. the respondent no. 8, meaning thereby, it was aware that the respondent no. 8 was working at the contract-work site at the relevant point of time. The fact of involvement of the respondent no. 8 at the contract-work site has also emanated from the electrical accident inquiry report which the respondent APDCL authorities had acknowledged to have received along with the affidavit of the respondent no. 3 dated 04.12.2018. Despite being aware of such position that the respondent no. 8 was a sub-contractor under M/s RSM Technology Private Limited to whom the respondent APDCL had awarded the contract, they have not disputed the said position and it is only at the time of final hearing, such a submission has been made orally without laying any kind of factual foundation in its pleading. To raise such a submission, appropriate pleadings laying the requisite factual foundation are necessary so as to enable the Court to reach a just decision on the issue raised by the concerned party. A decision cannot be based on the grounds outside the pleadings of the parties, unless it is a pure question of law. A question of fact for such no factual foundation has been laid by a party before the Court, is not allowed to be agitated at the time of hearing. Any allegation raised against another party must also be raised in presence of another party. No pleading whatsoever has been taken by the respondent APDCL authorities in its affidavit-in-opposition seeking impleadment of the contractor to whom the work was awarded while admitting the presence of the respondent no. 8 as the sub-contractor who was carrying out the said work at the contract-work site at the relevant time.
31. In Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has exposited the rule of strict liability and the applicability of the said rule in relation to public utilities in the following manner :-
"96. Courts have held that due to the action or inaction of the State or its officers, if the fundamental rights of a citizen are infringed then the liability of the State, its officials and instrumentalities, is strict. The claim raised for compensation in such a case is not a private law claim for damages, under which the damages recoverable are large. The claim made for compensation in public law is for compensating the Page No.# 22/29 claimants for deprivation of life and personal liberty which has nothing to do with a claim in a private law claim in tort in an ordinary civil court.
97. This Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, [2008] 9 SCC 527, extended the principle to cover public utilities like the Railways, electricity distribution companies, public corporations and local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit. In Prabhakaran (supra) a woman fell on a railway track and was fatally run over and her husband demanded compensation. The Railways argued that she was negligent as she tried to board a moving train. Rejecting the plea of the Railways, this Court held that her "contributory negligence" should not be considered in such untoward incidents - the Railways has "strict liability". A strict liability in torts, private or constitutional do not call for a finding of intent or negligence. In such a case highest degree of care is expected from private and public bodies, especially when the conduct causes physical injury or harm to persons. The question as to whether the law imposes a strict liability on the State and its officials primarily depends upon the purpose and object of the legislation as well. When activities are hazardous and if they are inherently dangerous the statute expects the highest degree of care and if someone is injured because of such activities, the State and its officials are liable even if they could establish that there was no negligence and that it was not intentional. Public safety legislations generally fall in that category of breach of statutory duty by a public authority. To decide whether the breach is actionable, the Court must generally look at the statute and its provisions and determine whether legislature in its wisdom intended to give rise to a cause of action in damages and whether the claimant is intended to be protected.
98. But, in a case, where life and personal liberty have been violated, the absence of any statutory provision for compensation in the statute is of no consequence. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right. Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be read into all public safety statutes, since the prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual and to compensate him for the loss suffered. Duty of care expected from State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is, therefore, very high, compared to the statutory powers and supervision expected from the officers Page No.# 23/29 functioning under the statutes like the Companies Act, the Cooperative Societies Act and such similar legislations. When we look at the various provisions of the Cinematographic Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder, the Delhi Building Regulations and the Electricity laws the duty of care on officials was high and liabilities strict.
99. The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compensation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations. Quite often the courts have a difficult task in determining damages in various fact situations. The yardsticks normally adopted for determining the compensation payable in a private tort claims are not as such applicable when a constitutional court determines the compensation in cases where there is violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens."
32. In a writ proceeding, a clear picture normally arises as to whether any disputed question of fact is involved in the adjudication or not, only after the parties exchange their pleadings. It is settled that the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised on sound judicial principles and if after exchange of pleadings, it is found that the jurisdiction can be exercised in determining the issues involved therein on the basis of the materials on record then the Court can exercise such discretion. In Smti. Gunwant Kaur and others vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and others, reported in [1969] 3 SCC 769, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under :-
"14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the Page No.# 24/29 petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons."
33. In view of the above discussion, it has emerged that on 31.03.2013, Gobinda Rabha was engaged by the respondent no. 8 in the work of replacing 11 KV electric line at a place near the Post Office at Tamulpur and during such engagement, the respondent no. 8 made Gobinda Rabha to climb one of the electric post supporting the 11 KV line. It is not in dispute that Gobinda Rabha was a layman and a daily-wage labour who did not have any knowledge about electrical works. It has also emerged that the respondent no. 8 was working as a sub- contractor who was involved in the contract-work of shifting the 11 KV overhead line and he was working as such sub-contractor under a contractor named M/s RMS Technology Private Limited which was awarded the said contract-work by the APDCL by entering into a contract agreement. It is also not in dispute that the respondent no. 8 in order to execute the task had taken a shutdown notice from the Tamulpur Electrical Sub-Divisional Office of the APDCL. The grant of permission of shutdown to the respondent no. 8 by the Tamulpur Electrical Sub- Divisional Office of the APDCL clearly establishes the relationship between the two. Otherwise, a permission of shutdown is not granted to a stranger. The electrical accident inquiry report has pointed out that while executing the task in reference, the provisions of Regulation 19[1], Regulation 19[2] and Regulation 29[1] of the Central Electricity Authority [Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply] Regulations, 2010 were contravened, which inter alia included non-earthing, non-supply of tools and devices such as gloves, rubber shoe, safety belts, ladders, helmets, etc. to the workers which included the deceased, to execute the concerned electric work. As has been noticed from the work order awarded to the contractor by the APDCL, it was the responsibility of the APDCL authorities to arrange shutdown from the concerned authority after observing all necessary formalities as and when Page No.# 25/29 asked for by the contractor to facilitate the contract-work at the site. It is also not in dispute that due to sudden resumption of electricity at the 11 KV line because of lack of communication between the respondent no. 8 and the employees of the APDCL, Gobinda Rabha sustained electrical injuries when he was at the top of an electric post. Gobinda Rabha died of those injuries and post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gobinda Rabha was performed on 01.04.2013. As per the post-mortem examination report, the cause of death of Gobinda Rabha was due to syncope as a result of ventricular fibrillation due to electrical injuries sustained during life. In the post-mortem examination report, four electrical burn injuries were reported. Thus, the post-mortem examination report corroborates the factum of death of Gobinda Rabha due to electrical accident. The electrical accident inquiry report which was submitted by the Electrical Inspector who after due inquiry under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has reported about the contraventions indicated above. The APDCL being an electricity distribution company is a public utility. The activities carried out by it are inherently dangerous in nature. Having noticed all the facts and circumstances and the pleadings of the parties, this Court has not found any disputed question of fact in the case in hand to disable this Court to determine the claim for compensation under public law remedy and has found no sufficient reason to relegate the parties to the civil court for any factual determination. From the fact situation obtaining in the case, as has been discussed above, the respondent APDCL authorities are found liable for the loss of human life under the rule of strict liability as well as the rule of vicarious liability. Consequently, they are found liable to compensate the claimant-petitioner here who has made a claim for compensation under the public law remedy for infringement of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The next issue is what should be the amount of compensation.
34. The Board of Directors of the respondent APDCL authorities by an Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013 had provided different quantum of compensation payable to the next-of-kin of the victims in respect of fatal electrical accidents. In the said Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, a detailed procedure had also been laid down in respect of disbursal of such compensation. In supersession of the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, another Office Memorandum came to be issued on 25.09.2017 where a uniform rate of compensation was prescribed. It is stated at the bar that the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [AERC] Page No.# 26/29 has notified AERC [Compensation to Victims of Electric Accidents] Regulations, 2019 where a detailed procedure has again been laid down as regards electrical accidents and quantum of compensation payable for loss of human life/animals, etc.
35. As per the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, the compensation payable in respect of a victim above 20 years of age and upto 55 years of age was Rs. 1.50 lakh. The amount of compensation, as per the Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2017, was at a uniform rate of Rs. 2.50 lakh irrespective of the age of the victim and the said uniform rate of compensation came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2017. It has been laid down therein that the above amount compensation shall be disbursed by the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Electrical Circle within 48 hours of the accident, based on the preliminary satisfaction of the field officers that a prima facie fault of the APDCL was established. Duty was also cast on the concerned officer in the APDCL to send notice and report of the electrical accident immediately to the Electrical Inspectorate, Government of Assam strictly in terms of the mandatory provisions contained in the Electricity Act, 2003 and the AERC Regulations. As per the Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019, the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission has notified the AERC [Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents] Regulations, 2019 [the Regulations, 2019] providing for a detailed procedure as well as the quantum of compensation payable for loss of human life/animal and also injury to human, where the accident is attributable to the fault/negligence of APDCL authorities. Regulation 9 of the Regulations, 2019 has provided that the right of any person to claim compensation as per the prescribed rate stated therein shall not affect the right of any such person to recover the compensation payable under any other law for the time being in force, provided that the amount paid as compensation under the Regulations, 2019 shall be duly deducted from such compensation payable under any other law, so as to avoid double payment by the licensee.
36. This writ petition has been preferred in the year 2016. It is not the case of the respondent APDCL authorities that the electrical accident resulting in loss of a human life was not within their knowledge. The electrical accident inquiry report submitted in respect of the electrocution case in hand has not been challenged in any manner by the respondent APDCL authorities under sub-section [2] of Section 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003 till date nor the Page No.# 27/29 findings made in the said electrical accident inquiry report have been traversed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent APDCL authorities in the instant case. From the facts that have emerged from the above discussion in respect of the accident, the respondent no. 3 had submitted his electrical accident inquiry report in respect of the fatal electrical accident that occurred on 31.03.2013. The date when the said electrical accident inquiry report was submitted is not known. In such situation, the date of submission is taken as 04.12.2018 when the said report was brought on record with the affidavit of the respondent no. 3. What took the respondent authorities such long period of time to inquire into the accident and thereafter, to submit the electrical accident inquiry report has not been explained in either of the affidavits of the respondent authorities. The procedure prescribed in all the above Office Memoranda had/has mandated that it was/is incumbent on the part of the respondent APDCL authorities to settle a claim of a fatal electrical accident within a prescribed period of time from the date of receipt of information about the same on the basis of the documents/records indicated therein. From the discussion here, it is clearly demonstrated that the settlement of claim in respect of the fatal electrical accident in the case in hand has not been settled expeditiously as indicated in the Office Memoranda [supra]. While the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2017 had prescribed the period of settlement as 60 [sixty] days, the Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 has prescribed a period of 120 [one hundred twenty] days as the period of settlement from the date of occurrence of the event.
37. It is contended on behalf of the respondent APDCL authorities that as the fatal accident under reference had occurred in the year 2013, the compensation prevailing at that time would only be payable to the victim. As there is inordinate and inexplicable delay on the part of the respondent APDCL authorities in disbursal of the compensation amount fixed by its own norms to the family of the victim in the case in hand, this Court cannot subscribe to the said contention advanced on behalf of the respondent APDCL authorities as regards the quantum of compensation payable as per the Office Memorandum prevailing at that point of time. It is also noticed from the Office Memoranda [supra] that there has been periodical enhancements in the amounts payable for loss of human life. From such periodical enhancements in respect of the compensation amount itself, it is clearly discernible that the Page No.# 28/29 respondent APDCL authorities have themselves observed that due to various factors including the changes in the cost of living index, the rates of inflation, etc., there are needs for upward revision periodically in the compensation amounts for different kinds of electrical accidents after taking into account the relevant factors inasmuch as a reasonable amount of compensation at a particular point of time might not be reasonable at the later point of time. The respondent APDCL authorities have formulated the guidelines providing for compensation amounts for different hazards to victims of electrocution and it cannot be denied that disbursal of such compensation amount should be prompt and immediate to enable the victims and/or the victim's family to overcome the sudden loss and to deal with the untoward situation which have befallen on them suddenly due to such electrocution death which is always unanticipated. In the event the disbursal of the compensation amount is not made immediately and there is delay in disbursal of the same, it is incumbent on the part of the authorities to offset the situation for the victims and/or victim's family by disbursal of the amount of compensation prevailing on the date of such disbursal.
38. The Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 has prescribed an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of human life. While prescribing the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation, it has also been prescribed that in the event a claim is not settled within a period of 120 [one hundred and twenty] days from the date of occurrence of the electric accident, the delay in payment of compensation shall result in an additional interest of 12% per annum on the amount.
39. The principle that can be culled out from the decisions in Rathi Menon vs. Union of India, reported in [2001] 3 SCC 714, and N. Parameswararn Pillai and another vs. Union of India and another, reported in [2002] 4 SCC 306, is that relevance of date of incident is that the right to claim is acquired on such date and the compensation is to be assessed as per rules prevailing at the time of making the determination. The decision in M/s Hind Stone [supra], cited by Mr. Pathak, is found not relevant as the same was in respect of renewal of a mining lease.
40. In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that it is the compensation Page No.# 29/29 prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 which is payable in respect of the fatal electric accident under reference. Accordingly, the respondent APDCL authorities are directed to make payment of a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner along with an interest of 12% per annum on the said amount. Having due regard to the factual situation obtaining in the case in hand, it is directed that the respondent APDCL authorities shall calculate the interest at 12% per annum w.e.f. 04.12.2018 i.e. the date of submission of the electrical accident inquiry report by the respondent no. 3 and the same shall be paid to the petitioner upon her due identification within a period of 2 [two] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the respondent APDCL authorities from the petitioner. Notwithstanding such payment, it would be open for the petitioner to pursue private law remedy for further compensation.
41. With the observations made and directions given above, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant