Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J.

(Delivered by Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J.)

1. The child is the father of the man. But if the things which have been provided to the child by Almighty God as a natural gift are taken away by the instrumentality of the man through his negligence and carelessness, a question is raised as to how the child will be the father of the man.

2. Two kids, namely Yash Pal Singh, aged about 12 years and Ankit Kumar Yadav, aged about 14 years, were playing ball in front of House No.31 belonging to Mr. R.C. Singh situated in Gaurav Bihar Colony, Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow, and this tragic and heart rending accident took place on 11.06.2011 at about 04.30 PM, when during course of playing ball both innocent children came into contact with a naked 11 KV transmission line passing over by touching the roof of House No.31, and in consequence thereof both the innocent children injured seriously by electrocution as a consequence both hands and a leg of both the children have been amputated, a rare condition, leading to something even worse than 100% permanent disability. Playing with ball is most favourite game of small kids and a source of pleasure and happiness but they were unaware of the fact that the source of happiness will be cause of their sorrow and suffering. Now, for the rest of life whenever they will see the children playing with ball, a tragic memory will revive in their mind reminding this tragic playing with ball, electrocution and amputation of their important organs i.e. hands and one leg.

6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 4 and 6, it has been submitted that since the petitioners unfortunately touched 11 KV high tension line while they were playing, there is no fault of the electricity department. The respondents have denied the liability for payment of compensation on the ground of strict liability on the basis of proceeding under Section 161 which is pending before the authorities concerned. The Managing Director of Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Unit, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, opposite party no.3, has filed a separate counter affidavit in which it has been submitted that U.P. Power Corporation Limited has released a press note by which it has advertised for safety of the citizens and houses situated near LT/HT lines. Narrating the provisions of Sections 79 and 80 of the Indian Electricity Rule, 1956, it has been submitted that construction of some buildings near high tension line is against the provisions of the Electricity Act and on the basis of these provisions, the respondents have denied the liability to pay the compensation. It has further been submitted that U.P. Power Corporation Limited had issued office Notification dated 19.06.2008 by which it has been provided that in case of death caused due to electrocution, power corporation will pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) as compensation and they have paid the amount aforesaid to the petitioners. Taking recourse to the provisions of Section 161 of the Electricity Act the respondents have denied the responsibility to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioners.

17. Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, provides safety measures required to be observed for supply of electricity. It is the statutory duty of the person responsible for the supply and maintenance to abide by all the protective measures since it is a dangerous commodity. The respondents/corporation have failed to protect the life of the general public and thus this case falls within the ambit of strict liability. There is a flagrant violation of the Act and Rules by the respondents by not providing any safeguards, checks and balance to prevent escape of energy which caused electrocution in the instant case and causing 100% disability to two children/kids. The medical report reveals that Yash Pal Singh was brought to the hospital by his sister Richa Singh where more than six injuries were found and injuries were so serious that the finger print was not taken due to the reason that both palm and foot were burnt. The Emergency Medical Officer referred the matter vide report dated 11.06.2011 to KGMU, Lucknow. Similarly, the discharge summery of Ankit Kumar Yadav reveals that he was also admitted to the hospital for medical treatment of electrocution burn and on 12.06.2011, he was operated and both the hands from shoulders were amputated. He was again admitted to Trauma Centre on 16.07.2011 and right leg above knee was amputated. The perusal of the photographs, which are on record, expresses the tragic condition of both the kids where their both hands and one leg have been amputated.
26. In the case of Croke (a minor) and another v. Wiseman and others, reported in (1981) 3 All. E.R. 852 , the Hon'ble Judges Shaw and Griffiths, have held that the child would be entitled to be compensated for loss of future earnings by applying the appropriate multiplier.
27. The electricity authorities are duty bound to observe precautions/safeguards under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Failure of such statutory functions/duties tantamounting to negligence cannot be overcome by alleged statutory obligations on the part of the consumer of the electricity. Electrocution by live wires necessitates strict liability and differs from liability arising on account of negligence and is not relevant in cases of strict liability. The electricity department is liable irrespective of the fact whether the harm could have been avoided by the consumer or injured by taking precautions. It is the case of the petitioners as narrated in paragraph 23 of the petition which has not been contradicted by the respondents by the averments made in the counter affidavit that 11 KV high tension line was installed by the respondents in the year 2010 for providing the electricity supply to Rama Degree College and at the time of installation, the local residents strictly objected but the department refused to accept their requests. In light of the above averments it makes it clear that no precautions, safeguards, safety measures or other steps were taken to ensure that the live overhead line/wire was at a reasonable and sufficient distance to avoid human contact. Hence, by installing the live overhead line/wire and keeping it exposed clearly establishes that no measures were taken to avoid mishap by contact with the wire transmitting high voltage electrical energy. 100% permanent disabilities have been suffered by two minor kids having bright career of their life. The doctrine of strict liability has been discussed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and others reported in 1993 (2) SCC 476 and it was held as under:-