Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh Rawat And Ors vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And ... on 17 January, 2019
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CWP-1554-2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1554-2017 (O&M)
Reserved on:14.11.2018
Date of Decision:17.01.2019
Prem Singh Rawat & others ... Petitioners
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & others ... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate for
Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents.
...
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
Instant writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus directing the respondent/Punjab State Power Corporation Limited to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs on account of death of Rakeshdeep Rawat on 01.07.2016.
Petitioners herein are the parents, widow and two minor children of Rakeshdeep Rawat (since deceased).
It has been averred in the petition that the petitioners are the residents of vilalge Naya Gaon, District Mohali (Punjab). On 01.07.2016 at about 9-10 P.M., there was an electricity breakdown in the locality of Gobind Nagar, Naya Gaon. Rakeshdeep Rawat, went out of the house to see the reason for breakdown of the electricity. He noticed that certain employees of the Electricity Department were carrying out repairs on a transformer. When he came near the pole, the transformer fell down and 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2019 02:49:30 ::: CWP-1554-2017 (O&M) -2- on account of which Rakeshdeep Rawat suffered injuries and was taken to General, Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. He was then referred to PGI, Chandigarh and where he was declared dead. DDR was recorded at Police Station Naya Gaon, District Mohali on 02.07.2016. It has further been pleaded that the officials of the Electricity Department visited the house of the deceased and assured the petitioners that action would be taken against the guilty officials and compensation would be given to the petitioners. As no compensation was being paid, a legal notice dated 13.12.2016 (Annexure P-4) is stated to have been served upon the respondent/Corporation and the same having not evoked any response, the writ petition was filed.
Upon notice having been issued, a joint written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 through the Additional Superintending Engineer (Operation Special Division), Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mohali has been filed and placed on record.
In the reply, it has been stated that death of Rakeshdeep Rawat took place on 01.07.2016 and the incident was a pure accident. It has been stated that on the fateful day, a complaint was received in the office of the Sub Division, Mullanpur Garibdass, Sub Tehsil Majri that electricity supply had broken down in the locality of Gobind Nagar, Naya Gaon. Two employees of the respondent/Corporation attended the complaint. It was found that on account of heavy rain accompanied by high velocity winds, the 4 core XLPE cable had got disconnected from the transformer. To restore the electricity supply, such cable had to be reconnected with the LT Bush from which it had snapped on account of 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2019 02:49:31 ::: CWP-1554-2017 (O&M) -3- the strong wind. The cable in question was found by the employees to be wrapped around the transformer on account of strong winds and the linemen were finding it difficult to stretch out the same and reconnect the same to the LT Bush on the transformer. At such time, certain local people had gathered around the spot including the deceased. Despite the 11 KV danger signboard and repeated requests made by two linemen, the deceased had refused to move away. At that point of time, while the two linemen were trying to pull the 4 core XLPE cable so as to unwrap the same, the transformer gave away and fell down from the pole.
Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the incident happened due to negligence on the part of the respondent/ Corporation and who did not bolt the electric transformer properly and due to which the transformer fell down upon the deceased resulting in his death. It is further submitted that Rakeshdeep Rawat (deceased) was 41 years of age at the time of his death and was running a repair shop of AC, Refrigerators, washing machines in the main bazar of Teja Singh Market Naya Gaon, District Mohali. Counsel contends that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. A compensation amount of Rs.50 lakhs is prayed for by submitting that he petitioners herein as also Rekha Rawat unmarried sister of the deceased were totally dependant upon him. It is urged that the untimely and tragic death of Rakeshdeep Rawat is on account of negligence on the part of the respondent/Corporation, which is an instrumentality of the State and was under a bounden duty to properly look after its installations and it is on account of grave neglect on its part 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2019 02:49:31 ::: CWP-1554-2017 (O&M) -4- that the life of a citizen has been lost.
Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent/ Corporation has opposed the prayer made in the petition by adverting to the averments made in the written statement and by contending that death of Rakeshdeep Rawat on 01.07.2016 on account of falling of transformer was not an incident but an accident.
Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and pleadings on record have been perused.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paramjit Kaur & others Vs. State of Punjab & others, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 772 has held that in case of death due to electrocution, a writ petition claiming compensation would be maintainable and the claimants cannot be relegated to the civil Court. It was further held that the compensation amount has to be assessed as per the principles laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 443 held that the Electricity Board is liable to pay compensation even in cases where there was no negligence on its part. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows:
"It is an admitted fact 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
4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2019 02:49:31 ::: CWP-1554-2017 (O&M) -5- 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 his private property and that the 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.
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."
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2019 02:49:31 :::
CWP-1554-2017 (O&M) -6-
Adverting to the facts of the present case, the respondent/ Corporation is not denying the incident whereby the electricity transformer had fallen on Rakeshdeep Rawat on 01.07.2016 and whose death occurred on account of grievous injuries suffered as a result thereof. The relevant averments in this regard have been made in para 4 of the preliminary submissions contained in the written statement and which were in the following terms:
"The sudden fall of the transformer crushed the legs of one of the employees of answering respondents and also injured the deceased which ultimately led to his death."
A stand has however been taken that it was the deceased himself to blame as he did not move away from the spot inspite of the linemen asking him to do so. This Court during the course of hearing put a specific query to the counsel representing the respondent/Corporation as to whether any fact finding inquiry had been conducted into the incident. Counsel has responded in the negative. What clearly emerges is that such stand has been taken in the written statement only to oppose the prayer for grant of compensation.
As per the respondent/Corporation, a cable having got disconnected was wrapped around the transformer on account of high velocity winds on the fateful day and the two linemen having exerted full force to un-wrap the same resulted in the transformer falling down. This is a clear pointer that the transformer had not been properly affixed on the pole(s). Mere exertion of force and tugging of cable at the hands of two linemen cannot be accepted as a valid reason for a transformer to fall down from the pole. It is not even the case of the respondent/Corporation that the 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2019 02:49:31 ::: CWP-1554-2017 (O&M) -7- area directly underneath the transformer had been fenced so as to prevent any loss of life/damage on account of the untoward incident that had happened. This Court would have no hesitation in holding that the incident which led to the falling of the transformer on Rakeshdeep Rawat was on account of sheer negligence attributable solely to the respondent/Corporation. The Corporation itself does not deny that the death of Rakeshdeep Rawat occurred on account of injuries that he had suffered in such incident. The respondent/Corporation as such is liable to pay the compensation to the dependants of the deceased.
As per dictum laid down by a Division Bench in Paramjit Kaur's case (supra), the compensation amount would require to be assessed as per principles laid down for awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The petitioners have stated the age of the deceased to be 41 years on the date of his death. The same age even stands reflected in the Post Mortem Report at Annexure P-3. There is no rebuttal to the same in the written statement. The petitioners are claiming that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- per month while running a repair shop of ACs, refrigerators and washing machines. However, no material/documents have been appended along with the writ petition and placed on record to substantiate such plea. Be that as it may, death of Rakeshdeep Rawat took place on 01.07.2016. He was maintaining a family comprising of his wife, two minor children and aged parents. It would be safe to presume that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month i.e. at par with the minimum wages admissible to a daily wager in relation to the date of death.
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2019 02:49:31 :::
CWP-1554-2017 (O&M) -8-
Notional income of the deceased as such is assessed as Rs.10,000/- per month. As per guidelines furnished by the Apex Court in National Insurance Com pany Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009, a 25% addition in income is granted towards future prospects. 1/3rd deduction would be made from the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the age of the deceased as 41 years, a multiplier of 14 would be applied by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77.
Accordingly, the compensation amount payable by the respondent/Corporation is assessed as follows:
Sr. Computation/Head Revised calculation No. 1. Notional monthly income Rs.10,000/-
2. 25% increase in income towards Rs.10,000/-
future prospects 10,000+2500=12,500/-
3. 1/3rd deduction towards personal
and living expenses of the 12,500 - 4166 = 8334
deceased
4. Annual dependency 8334 x 12 = 1,00,008/-
5. Compensation after applying
multiplier of 14 8334 x 14 = 14,00,112/-
6. Total Rs.14,00,112/- (Rounded off
to Rs.14,00,000/-)
The compensation amount so determined shall be payable to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The compensation amount would be apportioned as follows:
(i) Rs.10 lakhs in favour of petitioner No.3 being widow as 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2019 02:49:31 ::: CWP-1554-2017 (O&M) -9-
also guardian of the two minor children i.e. petitioners No.4 and 5.
(ii) Balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs be released in equal share i.e. Rs.2 lakhs each in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2 i.e. parents of the deceased.
Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
17.01.2019 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
harjeet JUDGE
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
ii) Whether reportable? Yes
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2019 02:49:31 :::