The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of strict liability in cases of electrocution death and the assessment of compensation based on the concept of continuous cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. By this appeal the appellants/plaintiffs would call in question the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-7-2023 passed by the District Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar, in Civil Suit No. 01-A/2020 whereby the suit preferred by the plaintiffs claiming compensation against electrocution death of Hemant Dhruw (since deceased) was dismissed. The appellants, who are legal heirs of the deceased, are present before this Court against such dismissal.

2. In order to advance the cause of justice Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate, who was present in the Court on the earlier occasion, was requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae. He argued the case. Mr. Pranjal Agrawal was assisted by Mr. C.R. Sahu, original counsel for the appellants. Respondents No. 1 & 2 are represented by Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate. Respondent No. 3 is represented by the State counsel.

3. The facts of this case, in brief, which led to filing of civil suit, are that one Hemant Dhruw, resident of village Jhonka, was working as a labour and used to look after his entire family, who are the appellants (legal heirs) herein. According to the plaintiffs, the deceased used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month, which would have increased with the passage of time. On 22.02.2014 at Village Jhonka, because of heavy rains and storm one of the electric wire, which had a connection from the transformer, fell down on the ground wherein electricity flow continued. On 22.02.2014 at about 5:00 a.m. the deceased went to answer the nature’s call and got into contact with the scattered wire, wherein he sustained severe injuries due to electrocution and initially he was referred to the Government Hospital at Balodabazar. Subsequently, he was referred to the higher center, however, during the course of treatment the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 28.2.2014. On account of sudden demise in harness, the merg was registered and in the postmortem cause of death was affirmed due to electrocution. Statement was given by the villagers that it was because of the fault on the part of the Electricity Department. Subsequently, after a gap of almost five years, notices were exchanged by the legal heirs claiming compensation and the suit was eventually filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/-.

4. The Electricity Department (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2) denied the adverse allegations and stated that death was caused due to self inflicted injuries and it was stated that the deceased was installing some DO in the transformer, therefore the incident happened. The department also raised a question about the limitation to say that the suit should have been filed within three years and prayed for dismissal of the same being barred by limitation.

5. The trial Court framed four issues and held that the death was not due to the negligence on the part of the Electricity Department and further held that the suit is barred by limitation. Consequently, dismissed the suit. Thus, this appeal.

6. Learned amicus curiae would submit that the nature of death was due to electrocution, therefore, the question would fall whether the suit can be dismissed on the ground of delay in compensation cases. He would further submit as per Section 2 (j) of the Limitation Act 1963 (for short ‘the Act 1963’) the prescribed period has been defined and the suit which was filed is predominately a claim petition for electrocution death. Therefore, it would be a continuous cause of action. Learned counsel would refer Halsbury’s Laws of England to submit when the time runs continuous as the claimants are deprived claim of compensation on account of death of their breadwinner and they being the dependents their claim cannot be curtailed. He would also submit that after the notice was issued by the claimants to compensate them on 12.1.2019, the time may be stated to b