Back
Compensation Not Payable for Domestic Electrocution Accident Using Tullu Pump:
In a significant ruling, the has held that compensation under the ’s circular dated is not payable when a fatal electrocution occurs inside a consumer’s home while operating an internal electrical appliance like a Tullu Pump. The Court, however, expressed serious concern over the electricity department’s failure to communicate the rejection of the compensation application to the aggrieved family and directed that all such orders be promptly conveyed to applicants in future.
A Domestic Tragedy and a Quest for Compensation
The case arose from a tragic incident on . Shrawan Kewat’s wife, Sarita, suffered a fatal electric shock while shifting and operating a Tullu Pump inside their residential premises in Village Mekri, Janjgir-Champa district. She was rushed to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, where doctors declared her dead. A police investigation followed, and the confirmed electrocution as the cause of death.
Shrawan Kewat, an unemployed man left to care for their three children, sought compensation from the , contending that the accident stemmed entirely from the company’s . When his request was not honoured, he moved the High Court under , seeking a direction for payment of ₹15 lakh with 9% annual interest, or at least the ₹4 lakh compensation he claimed was fixed under the company’s own circular.
The Two Sides of the Wire
Petitioner’s Stand : Through Advocate , the petitioner argued that the electrocution happened due to the of the electricity distribution company. He submitted that the police , while stating that the death occurred “due to electrocution while operating a Tullu Pump”, did not absolve the company of its responsibility. The petitioner insisted that since the company’s circular provides for compensation in cases of electrical accidents, his family was legally entitled to it.
Respondents’ Defence : Appearing for the electricity company, Advocate opposed the claim. The company’s primary submission was that the accident fell squarely outside the scope of the compensation scheme framed under the Circular dated . That circular, they said, grants compensation only for accidents that occur in relation to “the electricity meter or electrical installation up to the consumer’s metering point”. Once the accident happens beyond that point — i.e., within the consumer’s internal wiring or domestic appliances — the company cannot be held liable. The company further revealed that the petitioner’s application had already been rejected vide order dated , rendering the . The respondents also placed heavy reliance on an earlier judgment of the same High Court in , decided on , where an identical claim was rejected on the same ground.
Where the Law Meets the Meter
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, who heard the matter, undertook a meticulous examination of the police and the compensation circular. The key legal principle was unambiguous: the circular creates a . Accidents caused by the consumer’s own electrical infrastructure or appliances — which lie beyond the company’s metering point — are not covered. Since the deceased came into contact with a live Tullu Pump inside her home, the tragedy, however unfortunate, did not fall within the compensatory net.
The Court also found that the precedent cited by the respondents applied directly. The earlier decision in had already interpreted the circular in similar factual circumstances, and the present case offered no reason to deviate from that settled position. The bench concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation under the said circular.
Key Observations
The judgment is punctuated with pointed remarks that go beyond the immediate dispute:
-
On the scope of the compensation scheme : “The death of the petitioner’s wife occurred due to electrocution while operating a domestic Tullu Pump within the residential premises. Such an incident does not fall within the scope and coverage of the aforesaid Circular, which governs the grant of compensation in specified cases of electrical accidents.”
-
On the administrative lapse : “There is nothing on record to indicate that the said order was ever communicated to the petitioner. … Failure to communicate the decision deprives the affected person of the opportunity to avail appropriate legal remedies available under law.”
-
A judicial directive for transparency : The Court went out of its way to observe that “every applicant is entitled to be informed of the fate of his application within a reasonable time” and directed the competent officers of the electricity distribution company to personally ensure that all orders passed on applications are duly communicated without delay.
Verdict and Its Ripple Effect
The was dismissed. The Court found it devoid of merit and held that the petitioner’s sole remedy, if any, lay elsewhere — not in a claiming compensation under the circular.
However, the dismissal came with a . The Court took a dim view of the fact that even though the compensation application was supposedly rejected on , the petitioner was never told about it. No proof of dispatch or service was placed on record. The Court warned that such lapses must not recur, failing which it would be constrained to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The ruling reinforces the boundaries of the electricity company’s liability in domestic accidents: the compensation net extends only up to the metering point. Beyond that, the consumer’s household wiring and appliances are the consumer’s own responsibility. At the same time, the decision underscores a fundamental administrative duty — that even a rejection order must see the light of day in the hands of the person it affects. For future applicants, this directive promises a more accountable and transparent process when they seek relief from the State’s power distribution arm.
