Point of Law: Regulation 13 of the AERC Regulations, 2019 has laid down that the occurrence of electrical accident leading to loss of human life shall be reported to the Electrical Inspector by the concerned officer of the licensee under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within 24 [twenty four] hours of the electrical accident.

JUDGMENT :

The common subject-matter in these 2 [two] writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is claim for compensation for the deaths of one Late Sulota Sarkar and one Late Satya Sarkar on the common ground that their deaths had occurred in an electrical accident which took place on 13.08.2019. Due to non-disbursal of such compensations, the two writ petitions have been preferred seeking similar direction to the respondent authorities in the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] to grant the petitioner adequate compensations.

2. As the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same; the alleged electrical accident in respect of which the claims for compensation have been made, is also one and the same; and the respondents are also same, both the writ petitions are taken up together at the request of the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself. It is also noted that the exchange of pleadings are complete.

3. The relevant background facts, in brief, leading to the institution of the 2 [two] writ petitions, as found averred by the petitioner, are as follows :-

3.1. The petitioner was the father of both Late Sulota Sarkar and Late Satya Sarkar. On 13.08.2019, his son, Satya Sarkar went to bring straw from the straw stock. At that point of time, he came in contact with a live electric wire which had allegedly fallen on the ground due to heavy storm in the previous night. When Satya Sarkar got electrocuted, his elder sister, Sulota Sarkar tried to save him and in the process, she also got electrocuted. In connection with the said incident, one First Information Report [FIR] was lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Mayong Police Station on 13.08.2019 and the said FIR was registered as Mayong Police Station U.D. Case no. 20/2019.

3.2. Inquests on the deadbodies of both the daughter and the son of the petitioner were performed and thereafter, the bodies were sent to Morigaon Civil Hospital for post-mortem examinations. The post-mortem examinations on the deadbodies were performed at Morigaon Civil Hospital on 13.08.2019. As per the post-mortem examination reports, the cause of death of both the deceased was similar. It was opined that the deaths were due to electrocution with high voltage leading to tissue damages and fibrillation with cardiac arrest. The autopsy doctor had opined that the same were irreversible probably due to high voltage current, ante-mortem in nature and accidental.

3.3. In the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of Mayong Police Station U.D. Case no. 20/2019 submitted a report before the Superintendent of Police, Morigaon District on 03.10.2019. As per the said report, witnesses were examined at the place of occurrence and inquests were performed on the deadbodies by the Circle Officer, Morigaon Revenue Circle. The report further reiterated the findings recorded in the post-mortem examination reports. The report had further indicated that the case was pending for submission of final report.

3.4. The Registrar, Birth & Death, Jhargaon Primary Health Centre [PHC] had also issued death certificates on 26.08.2019 recording the same date of deaths of the two deceased as 13.08.2019.

3.5. It is the further case of the petitioner that he submitted applications seeking due compensation for the deaths of his daughter and son before the respondent APDCL authorities on 04.10.2019. When no discernible action with regard to the matter of payment of compensation was seen to have been taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has stated that he has to approach this Court seeking the direction, mentioned above.

4. I have heard Mr. R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for the respondent nos. 3 and 5; and Mr. J. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Senior Electrical Inspector, Assam. It is stated at the bar that the respondent