The court established the principle of strict liability in cases of death due to electrocution, holding the respondents absolutely liable to compensate those harmed in the course of managing the supply of electricity.

Maibam B.K. Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. Aleng Vashum, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Md. Jalal-Uddin, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of Government respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for directing the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs to each of the two petitioners in respect of the death of their respective husbands due to the electrocution on 22-4-2002 at about 1.15 p.m. caused by a falling of a high tension electric line from its pole while they were proceeding riding a scooter and approaching Khongjon village. The name of the deceased husband of petitioner No. 2 Is said to be S.K. Thamnok Lamkang. According to the petitioner, a U.D. Case No. 1/2002 was also registered in connection with the said occurrence. Further according to the petitioners, the electric line was broken and detached from its pole as it was very old and It was not also repaired despite request made by one R.D. Kowar Anal, Chairman, Chief Area Association of Sulam Chandel on 18-4-2002 to respondent No. 3 for repairing the electric post as well as about the weakness of the electric wire between Khongjon village and Bongku village. The, case of the petitioners Is to the effect that had the respondents taken appropriate steps in respect of the electric post and the wire, the said falling of the wire would not have taken place leading to the said electrocution resulting into the death of the two persons.

3. There is no dispute that the said two persons died due to electrocution on 22-4-2002 at about 1.15 p.m. caused by a falling of a high tension electric line from its pole while they were proceeding riding a scooter towards Khongjon village. The respondents also admitted about the registration of a U.D. Case No. 1/2002 at Chandel Police Station. According to the respondents, the fall of the electric wire was due to the lightning stroke resulting breaking of a tension disc Insulator and not due to negligence of any of the respondents. Further, according to the respondents, no one complained to respondent No. 3 for repairing the electric post and also about the weakness of electric wiring at or near the place of occurrence. It Is the case of the respondents that since there are disputed questions of fact in the case in respect of the question of negligence, it will not be proper on the part of this" Court to award any compensation in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of their case, the respondents cited the decision of the Apex Court made In Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das (1999) 7 SCC 298.

4. In S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram AIR 2005 SC 3971, the Apex Court considered the question if the High Court was justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and awarding compensation to the writ petitioner even though the appellants who were the respondents in the writ petition had denied the liability on the ground that the death had not occurred as a result of their negligence but because of negligence of the writ petitioner or an act of God or because of an act of some other persons Relying to its earlier decision made in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held to the effect that the High Court was not justified in exercising its power under Article 226of the Constitution of India. In the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the appellants had disputed the negligence attributed to it and since no finding was recorded by the High Court that the Grid Corporation was in any way negligent in the performance of its duty, on the basis of the decision made in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra), the High Court was not justified in awarding compensation in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is however, to be noted that in S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra), no consi