Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
RAMAN - APPELLANT
Vs.
UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11466 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 8113 OF 2014)
Decided On: 17-12-2014
(1994) 2 SCC 176; (1996) 3 SCC 179; (1996) 4 SCC 362; (2002) 6 SCC 306; (2003) 3 SCC 148 – Relied upon
(b) Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 68 r/w Rule 91, 29, 44 and 46, Electricity Rules, 1956 – Compensation – Quantum – Factors to be taken into account – Victim of electrocution a boy of 4 years – Had to suffer triple amputation by removing both his arms upto arm pit and left leg upto knee – 100% disability – Appellant requiring permanent assistance of an attendant – Entitled to be compensated for treatment charges, suffering from agony and loss of marital life – Amount awarded by Single Judge rather less – Division Bench ought not reduce it further – Directions given. (Para 19, 20, 21)
(2009) 6 SCC 121; (2014)1 SCC 384; (2013) 8 SCC 389 – Relied upon
(c) Administration of Justice – Compensation – Single Judge of High Court directing Rs. 30 lakhs compensation awarded in favour of the appellant, if he is not alive at the time he attains majority, to revert back to the respondent-Nigam after paying Rs.5 lakhs to the parents of the appellant – Not legal and valid – Compensation once awarded absolutely belong to such victims/claimants – It becomes their estate to devolved as per law of succession – Direction liable to be set aside. (Para 20)
(2014)1 SCC 384 – Relied upon
(d) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Division Bench accepting concession by counsel for appellant and treating it ad idem for modifying compensation awarded by Single Judge – Wholly unreasonable and therefore unsustainable, more son when the appellant denies having any such instruction for which he has sent a legal notice to the counsel concerned. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a four year old boy was electrocuted on 03.11.2011 by coming in direct contact with the naked electric wire lying open on the roof of his house.
The doctors at Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi were left with no other option but to carry out triple amputation by removing both his arms upto arm pit and left leg upto knee as the grievous injuries suffered were not curable. On 08.02.2012, the disability certificate was issued to the appellant certifying to be 100% permanent disability.
The appellant approached the High Court for an award of compensation from the respondents on account of the negligence on the part of the respondents which resulted in the tragic electric shock leading to triple amputation of the appellant.
The Single Judge of the High Court held the principle of “strict liability” and consequential negligence in awarding compensation in favour of the claimant against the State Electricity Board.
The Single Judge has held the electricity authority -the first respondent to be liable to pay the compensation to the claimant irrespective of the fact that the harm could have been avoided by the consumer by taking precautionary measures.
The Division Bench of the High Court passed a cryptic order while partially allowing the LPA filed by the respondents on the basis of the alleged concession given by the advocate on behalf of the appellant, holding that the learned counsel for the parties have obtained requisite instructions and they are ad idem that instant appeal be disposed of on the agreed terms.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is unreasonable and not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed, directions given.
JUDGMENT
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, represented through his natural guardian father -Manoj Kumar, has filed this appeal questioning the judgment and order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the Letters Patent Appeal No.1631 of 2013 in Civil Writ Petition No. 14046 of 2012.
3. The brief facts are stated herein:
The appellant, a four year old boy was electrocuted on 03.11.2011 by coming in direct contact with the naked electric wire lying open on the roof of his house. Immediately after the incident, the boy was taken for first aid to a nearby R.M. Anand Hospital in Panipat, Haryana from where he was referred to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak. The final treatment was given at Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, where the doctors left with no other option but to carry out triple amputation by removing both his arms upto arm pit and left leg upto knee as the grievous injuries suffered were not curable. On 08.02.2012, the disability certificate was issued to the appellant certifying to be 100% permanent disability.
4. It is stated on behalf of the appellant that prior to this tragic incident, on 16.08.2011 the appellant’s father along with other neighbours had approached the SDO, Chhajpur, Panipat i.e. respondent No. 3 through a representation, to remove the iron angle from the vicinity of the residential area, as it endangers the life of around 40 to 60 families which is densely populated. But no action was taken by him.
5. The appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for an award of compensation from the respondents on account of the negligence on the part of the respondents which resulted in the tragic electric shock leading to triple amputation of the appellant.
6. The said writ petition was opposed by the respondents by filing a written statement denying the allegations made therein stating that the iron angle found on the roof of the house was not installed by any employee of the respondent electricity department. It is stated by the respondents that the father of the appellant was to be squarely blamed for installing the insulator himself on the roof of the house on which high tension wire was erected to keep it at bay so as not to touch brick and mortal. Therefore, neither the first respondent-Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. nor its employees can be held responsible or accountable for the mishap occurred on the fateful day much less the damages or monetary compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellant herein.
7. The learned Single Judge of the High Court adverted to Section 68 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”) and Rule 91 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 (for short “the Rules”) which lay down the procedure of safety and protective devices to be provided for overhead electric lines erected over any part of the street or public place or any consumer’s premises and mandate that those shall be protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks.
8. The learned Single Judge of the High Court further referred to Rules 29, 44 and 46 of the Rules which are statutory in nature which require the electricity authorities to conduct periodical inspection of the lines maintained by them and to take all such safety measures to prevent accident and maintain the lines in such a manner that life and property of the general public is protected. The learned Single Judge has considered the position of law declared by this Court in catena of cases for awarding compensation, particularly, the electrocution cases, and held the principle of “strict liability” and consequential negligence in awarding compensation in favour of the claimant against the State Electricity Board. This Court and the various High Courts such as High Courts of Madras, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Kerala and Guj
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
