In the absence of specific provisions for compensation for electrocution, the court applied the multiplier and yardsticks as provided for death by accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner.

ORDER :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

The petitioner's husband Ananda Mondal died of electrocution on May 1, 2015 when energized electricity wire drawn over a brick-built government road fell over the said deceased. The petitioner made representations before the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (for short, "the WBSEDCL") for compensation on the ground of such demise. However, the said distribution licensee sat tight over the matter, necessitating the present writ petition.

2. The short point involved in the matter is, what is the yardstick to be followed in granting compensation to the victim's next of kin in cases of demise by electrocution?

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific provision in the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, "the 2003 Act") or any other statute on the question of compensation for electrocution. Hence, the standards applied in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the MV Act"), that is, the multiplier applied for calculating such compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act, as settled by the Supreme Court in various cases, ought to be applied in cases of electrocution death as well, since such provision is pari materia with the 2003 Act in the context.

4. Learned counsel argues that a co-ordinate Bench of this court, in an unreported judgment dated November 25, 2016 passed in W.P. 34143 (W) of 2014[Joyrita Maity (Biswas) vs. WBSEDCL &Ors.], had granted Rs. 5 lakh as compensation in a similar case. However, the quantum was decided on the particular facts of the case and not on the basis of any fixed standard or principle. In the present case, it is contended, the petitioner passed her Bachelor of Arts, Part - III Examinations in the year 2011 from the University of Calcutta. Hence she has sufficient educational qualification for being considered for appointment in a job with the WBSEDCL, commensurate with her qualifications, on sympathetic grounds. Moreover, the petitioner claims compensation at a much higher amount than Rs. 5 lakh, as granted in the cited case, since more than five years have elapsed after passing of the order therein and keeping in view the comparatively young age of the petitioner and her husband, at the time of his demise.

5. The petitioner, it is submitted, is facing tremendous financial hardship since her husband was the only earning member of the family.

6. Learned counsel for the WBSEDCL, by citing an interim order dated November 16, 2016 passed by the same Bench in the same case, that is, W.P. 34143 (W) of 2014, learned counsel points out that it was recorded by the learned Single Judge that, despite the sympathy of the Bench being with the petitioner, the writ jurisdiction is not exercised on sentiments. The Chairman and Managing Director of the WBSEDCL, in his report filed earlier in the said matter, had expressed his predicament in not being able to offer to the petitioner employment in the absence of any law on that behalf. On November 25, 2016, the Bench clearly recorded that the writ court had absolutely no jurisdiction to make any direction on the company to offer employment.

7. By placing extracts of the minutes of the 69th meeting of Board of Directors of the WBSEDCL held on February 20, 2017, learned counsel for the WBSEDCL argues that the amount of solatium, in the event of death caused by an accident involving the company's installations, was specifically enhanced from Rs. 2.5 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh, although previously in Joyrita Maity (supra), by treating the case as 'exceptional', Rs. 5 lakh was awarded as compensation. It is submitted that the WBSEDCL is bound by its own decision dated February 20, 2017.

8. Learned counsel submits that the only provision in the 2003 Act regarding accidents is Section 161 of the said Act, read with the Intimation of Accidents (Form and Time of Service of Notice) Rules, 2005.

9. Next relying on Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and Ors. Vs. Sukamani Das & Anr., reporte