The liability of a licensee under Section 67(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to make full compensation for any damage, detriment, or inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him extends to third parties injured by the licensee or persons employed by him and not to employees of contractors engaged by the licensee.

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

(1) The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an Agreement of Maintenance between the petitioner and the licensing company the petitioner undertook maintenance work. In the course of maintenance work one of its labourers, Sanjay Dhali, died due to a live high-tension line. 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.321 of 2006.

(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.

Case of the Licensing Company (WBSEB).

(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.

(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. For all the said reasons this application is not maintainable as the death of the deceased cannot be attributed to the licensing company.

3. PETITIONER-in-Reply

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.

4. (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.

(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 compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him."

(3) From a reading of the said section it is clear that the licensee is to make compensation not only to someone employed by him or engaged by him but to third parties who has suffered injury by virtue of the lic