Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/8410/2019 on 6 April, 2022
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010279762019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Petition (C) 8410/2019
Sri Ratan Sarkar
S/o late Rebati Sarkar,
R/o Village - Lecharibori,
P.O. Bhurgaon, P.S. Mayong,
District - Morigaon, Assam, 782411
...............Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Assam State Electricity Board
Bijuli Bhawan, Paltanbazar,
Guwahati, 781001
2. The Chairman
Bijuli Bhawan, Paltanbazar,
Guwahati, 781001
3. The Managing Director
Assam Power Distribution Company Limited,
Bijuli Bhawan, Paltanbazar,
Guwahati, 781001
4. The Senior Electrical Inspector
Government of Assam,
Rajgarh, Guwahati, 781003
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer
Udalguri Electrical Sub-Division,
APDCL, Morigaion,
P.O. & P.S. Morigaon,
District - Morigaion, Assam
...................Respondents
Page No.# 2/16 Writ Petition (C) 8597/2019 Sri Ratan Sarkar S/o late Rebati Sarkar, R/o Village - Lecharibori, P.O. Bhurgaon, P.S. Mayong, District - Morigaon, Assam, 782411 ...............Petitioner
-Versus-
6. The Assam State Electricity Board Bijuli Bhawan, Paltanbazar, Guwahati, 781001
7. The Chairman Bijuli Bhawan, Paltanbazar, Guwahati, 781001
8. The Managing Director Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Bijuli Bhawan, Paltanbazar, Guwahati, 781001
9. The Senior Electrical Inspector Government of Assam, Rajgarh, Guwahati, 781003
10. The Sub-Divisional Officer Udalguri Electrical Sub-Division, APDCL, Morigaion, P.O. & P.S. Morigaon, District - Morigaion, Assam ...................Respondents Advocates :
Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate
Respondent nos. 1 - 5 : Mr. K.P. Pathak, SC, APDCL
Respondent no. 4 : Mr. J. Handique, Jr. Government Advocate
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 06.04.2022
Page No.# 3/16
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]
The common subject-matter in these 2 [two] writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is claim for compensation for the deaths of one Late Sulota Sarkar and one Late Satya Sarkar on the common ground that their deaths had occurred in an electrical accident which took place on 13.08.2019. Due to non-disbursal of such compensations, the two writ petitions have been preferred seeking similar direction to the respondent authorities in the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] to grant the petitioner adequate compensations.
2. As the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same; the alleged electrical accident in respect of which the claims for compensation have been made, is also one and the same; and the respondents are also same, both the writ petitions are taken up together at the request of the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself. It is also noted that the exchange of pleadings are complete.
3. The relevant background facts, in brief, leading to the institution of the 2 [two] writ petitions, as found averred by the petitioner, are as follows :-
3.1. The petitioner was the father of both Late Sulota Sarkar and Late Satya Sarkar. On 13.08.2019, his son, Satya Sarkar went to bring straw from the straw stock. At that point of time, he came in contact with a live electric wire which had allegedly fallen on the ground due to heavy storm in the previous night. When Satya Sarkar got electrocuted, his elder sister, Sulota Sarkar tried to save him and in the process, she also got electrocuted. In connection with the said incident, one First Information Report [FIR] was lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Mayong Police Station on 13.08.2019 and the said FIR was registered as Mayong Police Station U.D. Case no. 20/2019.
3.2. Inquests on the deadbodies of both the daughter and the son of the petitioner were performed and thereafter, the bodies were sent to Morigaon Civil Hospital for post-mortem examinations. The post-mortem examinations on the deadbodies were performed at Morigaon Page No.# 4/16 Civil Hospital on 13.08.2019. As per the post-mortem examination reports, the cause of death of both the deceased was similar. It was opined that the deaths were due to electrocution with high voltage leading to tissue damages and fibrillation with cardiac arrest. The autopsy doctor had opined that the same were irreversible probably due to high voltage current, ante-mortem in nature and accidental.
3.3. In the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of Mayong Police Station U.D. Case no. 20/2019 submitted a report before the Superintendent of Police, Morigaon District on 03.10.2019. As per the said report, witnesses were examined at the place of occurrence and inquests were performed on the deadbodies by the Circle Officer, Morigaon Revenue Circle. The report further reiterated the findings recorded in the post-mortem examination reports. The report had further indicated that the case was pending for submission of final report.
3.4. The Registrar, Birth & Death, Jhargaon Primary Health Centre [PHC] had also issued death certificates on 26.08.2019 recording the same date of deaths of the two deceased as 13.08.2019.
3.5. It is the further case of the petitioner that he submitted applications seeking due compensation for the deaths of his daughter and son before the respondent APDCL authorities on 04.10.2019. When no discernible action with regard to the matter of payment of compensation was seen to have been taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has stated that he has to approach this Court seeking the direction, mentioned above.
4. I have heard Mr. R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for the respondent nos. 3 and 5; and Mr. J. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Senior Electrical Inspector, Assam. It is stated at the bar that the respondent no. 1 i.e. the Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB] had since ceased to be in existence. Consequently, the presence of the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Chairman, ASEB has also become redundant.
5. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions in the similar lines, as have been projected in the writ petitions. He has referred to the Electrical Accident Inquiry Report submitted by the Electrical Inspector to stress on the point that the electrical Page No.# 5/16 accident was caused solely to due to failure on the part of the licensee to maintain the safety standards and the same had led to the loss of two human lives of young ages.
6. Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL has contended that from the Electrical Accident Inquiry Report, it is also evident that the fault was partly attributable to the deceased. The authorities in the APDCL having learnt about the accident, had immediately visited the site on 13.08.2019 and came to know that Satya Sarkar [since deceased] tried to tighten the service wire which had sagged due to heavy storm in the previous night and while trying to do the same, without informing the official of the licensee, he somehow came in contact with the live low tension network through the G.I. wire attached to the PVC line. His elder sister, Sulota Sarkar [since deceased] without taking the necessary care and without thinking about the probable consequences, had caught hold of Satya Sarkar and the same had led to her electrocution.
7. Mr. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam has submitted that after the accident was reported to the office of the Chief Electrical Inspector, Assam, an inquiry was caused through the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector in terms of the provisions of Section 161, Electricity Act, 2003 and thereafter, an Electrical Accident Inquiry Report had been duly submitted. The said Electrical Accident Inquiry Report has been annexed to the additional affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 4.
8. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their respective pleadings.
9. Before going into the factual aspects of the cases, it is appropriate to refer to few relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.
9.1. Section 53 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has prescribed specifications of suitable measures inter alia for [i] protecting the public [including the persons engaged in the generation, transmission or distribution or trading] from dangers arising from the generation, transmission or distribution or trading of electricity, or use of electricity supplied or installation, maintenance or use of any electric line or electrical plant; [ii] eliminating or reducing the risks of personal injury to any person, or damage to property of any person or interference with use of such property;
Page No.# 6/16 and [iii] giving notice in the specified form to the Appropriate Commission and the Electrical Inspector, of accidents.
9.2. Section 57[1] of the Electricity Act, 2003 has provided that the Appropriate Commission may, inter alia, specify standards of performance of a licensee or a class of licensees. As per Section 57[2], if a licensee fails to meet the standards specified in sub-section [1], without prejudice to any penalty which may be imposed or prosecution be initiated, the licensee shall be liable to pay such compensation to the persons affected as may be determined by the Appropriate Commission. Under Section 57[3], the compensation determined under sub-section [2] shall be paid by the concerned licensee within ninety days of such determination.
9.3. Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has enabled the State Commission to make regulations, by notification, consistent with the Electricity Act, 2003 and the rules generally to carry out the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. As per sub-section [2] of Section 181, the State Commission may inter alia make regulations providing for the standard of performance of a licensee or a class of licensees under sub-section [1] of Section 57.
9.4. Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has provided for notice of accidents and injuries, if any accident occurs 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 or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal.
10. Taking note of the afore-stated provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, including the fact that the provisions of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 have not made any provision for payment of compensation to any person affected, the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission ['the AERC', for short] decided to formulate Regulations making a licensee/generating company liable for payment of compensation to the persons, affected due to the licensee/generating company's failure to meet specified standards with an intention to eliminate or reduce the risk of any loss of human life or animal life or causing disablement to any human being. The AERC in exercise of powers conferred by Section 181[1] read with Section 57[2] and Section 57[3] of the Electricity Act, 2003 and all other enabling powers, has made a set of Regulations viz. the Assam Page No.# 7/16 Electricity Regulatory Commission [Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents] Regulations, 2019 ['the AERC Regulations, 2019', for short] vide a notification no. AERC 635/2017/135 dated 05.08.2019. The AERC Regulations, 2019 were also published in the Assam Gazette in its issue dated 05.08.2019 stating that the AERC Regulations, 2019 had come into force from the date of its publication in the Assam Gazette, that is, on and from 05.08.2019.
10.1. Regulation 4 of the AERC Regulations, 2019 has provided for the safety standards which are as follows :-
[i] The works of Licensees or Generating Companies including Captive Generating Plants [CPPs] shall be so installed, constructed, maintained or operated or used so as to protect the public [including the persons engaged in the generation, transmission or distribution or trading], animals and property from dangers arising from the generation, transmission or distribution or trading of electricity or use of electricity supplied and eliminate the risks of any injury to any person, animal or damage to the property of any person.
[ii] The Licensees or Generating Companies including CPPs or any person connected to the Electricity System shall comply with all the mandatory safety requirements and take all necessary measures to protect human beings, animals and property from injury or damage by reason of contact with, or the proximity of, or by reason of the defective or dangerous condition of any appliance or apparatus used in the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity.
[iii] The Licensees or Generating Companies including CPPs shall strictly comply with the Safety Regulations and norms notified by the Central Electricity Authority [CEA] or other applicable Regulations as notified from time to time including any amendments. The following Regulations have been notified by CEA and are available in its official website.
· Central Electricity Authority [Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply] Regulations, 2010.
· Central Electricity Authority [Safety requirements for construction, operation and maintenance of electrical plants and electrical lines] Regulations, 2011. · Central Electricity Authority [Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply] Amendment Regulations, 2015.
Page No.# 8/16 · Central Electricity Authority [Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply] Amendment Regulations, 2018.
[iv] The above Safety Regulations shall be in addition to the Standards prescribed in AERC [Distribution licensees' Standards of Performance] Regulations, 2004 and AERC [Transmission licensees' Standards of Performance] Regulations, 2004.
10.2. With regard to compensation, Regulation 5 of the AERC Regulations, 2019 has mentioned that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law in force, the licensee/generating company shall be liable to pay compensation as specified in the Regulations, 2019 to the person affected or his dependents for loss of human life, or partial/total disablement, or loss of animal life or damage to property in consequence of an electrical accident, provided the electrical accident is attributable to the licensee/generating company/CPP. Regulation 6 has provided for quantum of compensation. As per Regulation 9, the right of any person to claim compensation as above shall not affect the right of any such person to recover the compensation payable under any other law for the time being in force. Regulation 13 has provided for an occurrence report of an electrical accident and Regulation 14 has provided for enquiry report. As per Regulation 13, the occurrence of electrical accident leading to loss of human or animal life or injury shall be reported to the Electrical Inspector by the concerned officer of the licensee/generating company under Section 161 of the Electricity Act 2003 read with the Intimation of Accidents [Form and Time of Service of Notice] Rules, 2005 so as to reach the above authority within 24 [twenty four] hours of the electrical accident. As per Regulation 14, it is also incumbent on the part of the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Electrical Circle to cause an inquiry, which is to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Assistant General Manager or equivalent, within 15 [fifteen] days from the receipt of a report of an electrical accident, and submit a detailed report to the Managing Director/Chief Executive of the licensee/generating company/CPP along with the documents mentioned therein. Such Enquiry Report requires to be accompanied by [i] Occurrence Report; [ii] Police Report; [iii] Post Mortem Report [in case of death]; [iv] Death Certificate [in case of death]; and [v] Age proof certificate of the victim.
11. It is not in dispute that the APDCL is a licensee under Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such, it has to comply with the provisions of the AERC Regulations, 2019 including the Central Electricity Authority [Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply] Regulations, Page No.# 9/16 2010.
12. The respondent APDCL authorities have filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 8410/2019. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been averred that on receipt of information about the electrical accident, the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Jargaon Electrical Sub-
Division, APDCL along with other officials visited the site at 07-00 a.m. on 13.08.2019. It is, thus, evident that the respondent APDCL authorities had received the information about the said electrical accident on 13.08.2019 itself.
12.1. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent APDCL authorities that the deceased Satya Sarkar was trying to tighten a PVC service wire which might have sagged due to heavy storm in the previous night and he came in touch with the live LT network through the GI wire attached to the PVC wire. It has also been contended that the deceased, Satya Sarkar was trying to fix the conductor on his own without any information to the office of the respondent APDCL authorities. The APDCL authorities have sought to deny that the live wire had fallen on the ground and it has been claimed that there was no negligence in any manner in the course of the said electrical accident or in the maintenance of the electricity line.
13. 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.
13.1. 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 Code of Civil Page No.# 10/16 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.
14. The Respondent no. 4 who is empowered under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to inquire into such an electrical incident which occurred on 13.08.2019 resulting ultimately into the death of human lives and to submit a report, conducted an inquiry in respect of the electrical accident in question and thereafter, had submitted an Electrical Accident Inquiry Report.
15. The respondent no. 4 had conducted the inquiry under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by visiting the site of the electrical accident and examining the witnesses. As per the Electrical Accident Inquiry Report, the victims came in contact with a live GI wire which was used as a carrier of the service cable and both the deceased received the fatal electrical shocks therefrom. After site verification, the respondent no. 4 had observed that the service cable was connected without any protective device and earthed terminal where the accident took place. The findings in the Electrical Enquiry Accident Report were to the effect that the single-phase, 2-wire, 230 volts electric line was drawn without any protective device installed anywhere right from the sub-station point till utilization point. It was observed that due to heavy storm in the previous night, the service cable along with GI wire which was used as a carrier, had fallen down due to inclination of the bamboo which was embedded to make paddy straw storage where the said GI wire and service cable were fastened as a support structure. As a result, the carrier of the service cable i.e. the GI wire came in touch with the live LT conductor and got the GI wire energized. On the day of the occurrence, the deceased, Satya Sarkar came to their straw storage for collecting straw for their cows but he somehow came in contact with the live GI wire and immediately fell down on the ground. His mother observing the incident, ran to him but she also fell down on the ground being unconscious. Then, the other deceased, Sulota Sarkar came to rescue her brother, Satya Sarkar and when she tried to lift him from the ground, she also fell down. Hearing the noise of their family members, the neighbours came to the accident spot and disconnected the barrel fuse of the distribution transformer wherefrom electric supply was fed. The people thereafter, Page No.# 11/16 took them to the civil hospital but the doctors at the civil hospital declared both of them as dead.
15.1. In the said Electrical Accident Inquiry Report dated 27.10.2021, it has been recorded that there were contraventions of Regulation 13[1], Regulation 13[2] and Regulation 16[1] of the Central Electricity Authority [Measures relating to Safety and Electrical supply] Regulations, 2010 on the part of the owner of the overhead line, that is, the APDCL [the licensee]. It was recommended by the respondent no. 4 that the licensee should strictly comply with the Central Electricity Authority [Measures relating to Safety and Electrical supply] Regulations, 2010 for installing and maintaining its supply network to ensure safety.
16. The respondent APDCL authorities have not denied the findings recorded in the Electrical Accident Inquiry Report dated 27.10.2021 submitted by the respondent no. 4 either by filing any affidavit against the same or by filing an appeal before the competent authority under sub-section [2] of Section 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
17. As per the post-mortem examination reports, the age of Late Sulota Sarkar was 16 years and the age of Late Satya Sarkar was 14 years at the time of their deaths. The contention made by the respondent APDCL authorities that Late Satya Sarka had tried to fix the conductor on its own is only a bald allegation without any material to support such contention.
18. The principle of strict liability has been explained in M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and others, reported in [2002] 2 SCC 162. In Shail Kumari [supra], the facts were that a live wire got snapped and fell on a 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 transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its Page No.# 12/16 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.
18.1 In the case of 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."
19. The principles 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 tortuous 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 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 Page No.# 13/16 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 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 arises, 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.
20. 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."
21. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, reported in [2011] 14 SCC 481, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dwelt at length on the concept of constitutional tort and compensatory jurisprudence.
22. 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. As per the concept of strict liability, in essence, a person/party will be held responsible for its actions, without the other person/party who has suffered, having to prove the fault or negligence on the part of the first person/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 Page No.# 14/16 activities, even if the first person/party had taken the necessary precautions and followed the requisite safety requirements.
23. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable, extra-ordinary and discretionary. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not circumscribed by any strict principles. But there are certain self- imposed limitations. In deciding whether to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not in a particular case, the Court may take into consideration various factors. Existence of alternative forum can be one of them. But existence of an alternative forum where the aggrieved person can seek relief, does not create a bar on the Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Ordinarily, when in a case disputed questions of fact of complex nature are found involved the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercised as it would require determination through leading of evidence by the parties. But what facts are disputed and what facts are undisputed can be noticed only after the pleadings is filed by the State or the agency/instrumentality of the State against whom relief[s] is/are sought. If after pleadings is filed by the State or the agency/instrumentality of the State it is discerned that there is no requirement to determine disputed questions of fact and if it is found that the State or one of its agency/instrumentality has acted unfairly in the field of public law then in such a case, the recourse to the public law remedy can justifiably be invoked.
24. Reverting back to the facts and circumstances of the case, it has already been found in the light of the discussion made above that there is no disputed question of fact in so far as the issue as to how the electrical accident had occurred leading to the deaths of the two minors. It is clear from the affidavit of the respondent APDCL authorities that they came to know about the electrical accident on the date of occurrence i.e. on 13.08.2019 itself. Regulation 13 of the AERC Regulations, 2019 has laid down that the occurrence of electrical accident leading to loss of human life shall be reported to the Electrical Inspector by the concerned officer of the licensee under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within 24 [twenty four] hours of the electrical accident. The respondent APDCL authorities are silent about the Enquiry Report required to be submitted by the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Electrical Circle under Regulation 14 of the AERC Regulations, 2019 within 15 [fifteen] days from the receipt of a report of an electrical accident after conducting an enquiry and submission of a detailed report to the Managing Page No.# 15/16 Director/Chief Executive of the APDCL. There is no challenge to the findings made in the Electrical Accident Inquiry Report wherein there were findings about contraventions of Regulation 13[1], Regulation 13[2] and Regulation 16[1] of the Central Electricity Authority [Measures relating to Safety and Electrical supply] Regulations, 2010 on the part of the owner of the overhead line, that is, the APDCL [the licensee]. Regulation 15 of the AERC regulations, 2019 has provided for the procedure for claiming compensation. It has prescribed that a claim for compensation shall be made in the format specified as Form B. But at the same time, a duty has been cast on the licensee to determine the quantum of compensation on its own in case an electrical accident comes to its notice and to pay compensation to the persons entitled for the same in accordance with the Regulations, 2019, even if no claim is made. From the provisions contained in Regulation 15, it is distinctly clear that even in the absence of any claim a licensee is obliged to carry out an enquiry into an electrical accident and after such enquiry, it is obliged to pay the compensation to the victim if the accident is attributable to the licensee. The duty is also cast on the licensee to settle finally a claim within a period of 120 days from the date of occurrence of the electrical accident. As has been noted above, the petitioner herein had submitted applications seeking compensation for the death of his two minor children on 04.10.2019.
25. In view of the above discussions made above and in the light of the principles deducible from the decisions cited above, it has clearly emerged that the respondent APDCL authorities are liable to compensate the petitioner herein for the loss of two human lives in the form of his minor daughter, Late Sulota Sarkar and his minor son, Late Satya Sarkar in an electrical accident, under the public law remedy for infringement of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
26. The next issue is what should be the amount of compensation. Schedule-B of the AERC Regulations, 2019 has provided for quantum of compensation. The compensation payable for loss of a human life as a result of electrical accident has been quantified @ Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 has also prescribed an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of a 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 electrical accident, the delay in payment of compensation shall result in an additional interest @ 12% per annum on the amount.
Page No.# 16/16
27. Having regard to the fact situation obtaining in the cases in hand, this Court is of the considered view that it is the compensation prescribed in the AERC Regulations, 2019 read with the Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019, which is payable in respect of the fatal electrical accident under reference. Accordingly, the respondent APDCL authorities are directed to make payment of the compensation amount @ Rs. 4,00,000/- each in respect of the death of Late Sulota Sarkar and Late Satya Sarkar to the petitioner by calculating the interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 from 13.08.2019 till the date of payment. It is further directed that after calculation of the amount, the resultant amount shall be paid to the petitioner upon his due identification within 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 will be open for the petitioner to pursue private law remedy for further compensation.
28. The two writ petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant