High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
PATHERYA
Development Enterprise & Another
Versus
W.B.S.E.B & Others
W. P. NO. 7962 (W) OF 2007
Decided On : 16-07-2010
ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 - SECTION 67(3) - LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION - WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT - SECTION 19 - COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE - ARBITRATION - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the Electricity Act, 2003, Section 67(3), which imposes a liability on the licensee for compensation in case of damage or injury caused by the licensee or its employees. The court also referred to the Worker's Compensation Act, Section 19, which provides for compensation for damage caused by the licensee or its employees and mandates that any dispute regarding compensation be determined through arbitration.
Fact of the Case:
A worker employed by the petitioner, a job work contractor, died due to an accident while executing a job work contract awarded by the licensing company. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction upon the licensing company to proceed in accordance with law in respect of payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 67(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not applicable to the petitioner's case as the petitioner's employee is not the third party contemplated by the section. The court further held that the dispute regarding compensation should have been determined through arbitration as provided under Section 19 of the Worker's Compensation Act.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 67(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is applicable to the petitioner's case? 2. Whether the dispute regarding compensation should have been determined through arbitration?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 67(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 imposes a liability on the licensee for compensation in case of damage or injury caused by the licensee or its employees. However, in the present case, the petitioner's employee is not the third party contemplated by the section, and therefore, Section 67(3) is not applicable. 2. Section 19 of the Worker's Compensation Act provides for compensation for damage caused by the licensee or its employees and mandates that any dispute regarding compensation be determined through arbitration. In the present case, a dispute has been raised, and therefore, the matter should have been referred to arbitration.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the dispute regarding compensation should have been determined through arbitration.
PATHERYA J.:
1. This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction upon the Licensing Company to proceed in accordance with law in respect of payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased labourer.
2. Petitioners’ Case
2.1 The case of the petitioner is that a job work was awarded to it by the licensing company for intensification of Mouza Jatragachi J.L. No.24. In the course of execution of the said work one of its labourers, Samar Ghosh, died due to fall of a PCC pole on the deceased. Therefore the question which needs for consideration is whether the licensing company or the petitioner is liable for payment of compensation to the family of the deceased. Proceedings have been initiated under the Workmen’s Compensation Act being Claim Case No.375 of 2006.
2.2 Clause VIII of the General Terms and Conditions of the Contract dated 8th March, 2006 is void in view of Section 67(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (2003 Act), which imposes a liability on the licensee. The contract contains certain set forms and there can be no estoppel against statute. For the said proposition reliance is placed on AIR 1986 SC 1571. Therefore Clause VIII of the Terms and Conditions be declared void in view of Section 67(3) of the 2003 Act and the licensing company be directed to make payment of compensation to the family of the deceased.
3. Case of the Licensing Company (WBSEB).
3.1 Counsel for the licensing company submits that Section 67(3) has no application as no regulations have been framed under Section 53 and in view of Section 185 (2C), Rules 36, 44(A) and 45 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 will be applicable. Section 161 of the 2003 Act deals with accidents and postulates issuance of notice of the occurrence and the loss or injury caused by such accidents and inquiries.
3.2 In the instant case there has been no compliance of Section 161 of the 2003 Act and for non-issuance of notice no inspection could be made. No blame or liability can be attached to the licensing company either in common law or under the Regulations or the 2003 Act. For the said proposition reliance is placed on 1968 Lab.IC 1079.
3.3 From the finding of the Assistant Engineer, Basirhat R. E. Commission, WBSEB it will appear that the accident has occurred at a place where the feeder of licensing company is defunct and abandoned. Therefore, the accident cannot be related to the work undertaken.
3.4 For all the said reasons this application is not maintainable as the death of the deceased cannot be attributed to the licensing company.
4. Petitioner-in-Reply
4.1 Section 53 does not fix liability but sets out the procedural aspect. The Intimation of Accidents (form and time of service of notice) Rules 2005 postulates intimation being given and does not deal with the question of compensation. Section 67(2J) postulates making of rules regarding the procedure for adoption of safety measures for works undertaken. Section 67(4) has in cases of difference regarding the payment of compensation barred the appropriate commission to determine the same. Section 19 of the 1910 Act is equivalent to Section 67(3) of the 2003 Act. Section 161 postulates only giving notice of accidents not payment of compensation.
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 Having considered the submissions of the parties although the petitioner has argued that in view of Section 67(3) of the 2003 Act, Clause 8 of the terms and conditions of contract is void no such pleading can be found, nor relief sought.
5.2 Though not pleaded Counsel for the respondent has also objected to such submissions, therefore the parties have both travelled beyond the scope of the pleadings and therefore, the same is dealt with.
S.67 (3) of the 2003 Act reads as follows :
“A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under this section and the rules made thereunder, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compen
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.