IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for electrocution is awarded under the 2019 Regulations, with interest applicable only from the date of enactment, not retrospectively.

JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the APDCL and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner’s husband died due to electrocution on 16.05.2011, while drying his clothes in his residence. The petitioner’s husband suffered electrocution from the supply line of the Electricity Department due to which he lost his life. In the post-mortem conducted on the body of the petitioner’s husband, the Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to electrocution. Due the death of the petitioner’s husband Sri Monowar Hussain @Monowar Islam @Nongor due to electrocution, Mankachar P.S. U/D Case No.02/2011 was registered. The Office-in-Charge of the Mankachar P.S. submitted his final report on 06.08.2011 in the Mankachar P.S. U/D Case No.02/2011, to the effect that the injury on the deceased was ante-mortem in nature and in his opinion, the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage as a result of rupture of the heart due to electrocution.

3. The petitioner thereafter made a claim for payment of compensation due to the premature death of her husband on account of electrocution on 11.03.2013. However, as the petitioner’s claim was rejected by the authorities, the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2017.

4. This Court, vide order dated 24.02.2020, impleaded the Chief Electrical Inspector, Electricity & Power Supply Department as respondent No.5 in the writ petition. The respondent No.5 thereafter filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein the electrical accident enquiry report made by the office of the Chief Electrical Inspector, pertaining to the petitioner’s husband, was annexed. A perusal of the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report dated 19.01.2021 issued by the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam, who is an officer authorized under Sections 161 and 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is to the effect that the accident appeared to have been caused due to contravention of Regulations 13(1), 13(2) and 16(1) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2010 Regulations’) on the part of the owner of the overhead line, i.e., the APDCL.

5. Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector clearly shows that the electrocution of the petitioner’s husband occurred due to the contravention of the Regulations, attributable to the APDCL, compensation in terms Regulations 5 and 20 of the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electric Accidents) Regulations, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2019 Regulations’) would have to be paid.

6. Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the APDCL and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submit that in view of the report made by the Chief Electrical Inspector’s office, wherein the fault of the APDCL has been shown to be the cause of death of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation as per the 2019 Regulations.

7. Regulation 5 of the 2019 Regulations provides the procedure for payment of compensation due to an electrical accident, attributable to the fault/negligence of the generating company, i.e., the APDCL. Regulation 20 provides for the payment of interest on the compensation amount @12% per annum from the due date, if the compensation amount is not paid within 120 days from the date of occurrence of the electrical accident. Schedule-B of the 2019 Regulations provides that the compensation payable for loss of human life as a result of electrical accident would be Rs.4 lakhs per person. As the Chief Electrical Inspector’s office report dated 19.01.2021 regarding the death of the petitioner’s husband lays the blame/fault attributable to the APDCL, the APDCL would have to pay the compensation amount of Rs.4 lakhs to the petitioner in ter