IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah, J.
Mustt Piyarun Nessa W/O- Late Jaynul Hoque – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By The Secretary, To The Govt. Of Assam, Power (Electricity) Deptt., And Ors - Respondents
WP(C)/1985/2023
Decided On : 08-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. S. U. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5 and Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3, 6, 7, 8 & 9.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed claiming compensation on account of the death of the petitioner's husband in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 along with adequate interest as compensation for the loss suffered.
3. For deciding the entitlement of the petitioner in the instant proceedings, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. The case of the petitioner herein is that her husband being a temporary labour working under the respondent authorities was engaged by the respondent No.10 and one Govinda Mudoi to repair a faulty electrical transformer situated at Hawaipur, Hojai. It has been alleged that before starting of the repairing of the faulty transformer, the respondent No.10 called the control room of the Department over phone to disconnect the electric supply. After disconnecting the electric supply, the husband of the petitioner was repairing the faulty transformer under the supervision of the respondent No.10. But the officials of the control room had restored the electric supply without any information at the time of repairing for which the husband of the petitioner got electrocuted and died on the spot. On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR was also filed by the wife by the petitioner before the Officer-in-Charge of Hojai Police Station and the same was registered and numbered as Hojai P.S. No.472/2019 corresponding to GR Case No.1537/2019 under Section 304 of the IPC.
4. The materials on record further show that postmortem was conducted upon the husband of the petitioner and it was opined in the postmortem report that the husband of the petitioner expired due to cardiac arrest as a result of high voltage current passing through the body. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No.5 with a prayer for granting compensation for the death of her husband on account of negligence of the Power Electrical Department of the Respondent APDCL which led to the unfortunate death of the petitioner's husband. The said representation was forwarded to the concerned respondent authorities. However, no payment was made to the petitioner in terms with the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accident), Regulation 2019 (for short, “the Regulation of 2019’). It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction that the petitioner be granted the compensation in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 which is based upon the Regulation of 2019.
5. It is seen from the materials on record that this Court vide an order dated 06.04.2023 had issued notice. The records reveal that the APDCL authorities have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent No.4 on 04.03.2024 enclosing the Electrical Accident Report. It is relevant to take note of that the Electrical Accident Report so brought on record by the respondent No.4 by the affidavit dated 04.03.2024 was not in accordance with law, and as such, this Court vide an order 19.08.2024 directed the respondent No.4 to submit an Electrical Accident Report in accordance with the applicable relevant provisions of law.
6. It is seen that pursuant thereto, an affidavit was filed by the respondent No.4 on 12.11.2024 wherein an Electrical Accident Report dated 25.09.2024 was brought on record. In the said Electrical Accident Report dated 25.09.2024, it was opined that the reason which led to the accident appears to be on account of contravention of Regulation 19 (3) of the then Central Electric Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulation, 2010 on the pa
Compensation for electrical accidents is warranted under the Regulation of 2019 if the accident is attributable to the fault of the licensee, even partially.
The petitioner is entitled to Rs.4,00,000 compensation for death due to electrocution, with interest at 12% per annum after 120 days from the claim submission date.
Compensation for electrocution is awarded under the 2019 Regulations, with interest applicable only from the date of enactment, not retrospectively.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of strict liability, emphasizing the responsibility of the APDCL authorities for the electrocution accident and the need for prompt d....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of strict liability, holding the respondents absolutely liable to compensate for the death caused by their negligence in maintaining ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.