Liability of the electricity supplier for injuries caused by electric energy and the duty of the state to ensure citizen safety.

TASHI RABSTAN, J.

1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to pay reasonable amount of compensation for the tortious liability.

2. The facts-in-brief, as projected in the writ petition, are that on the fateful day of 25-5-2001 when the petitioner was going to attend the call of nature at about six in the morning, she came in contact with live electric service wire, which was hanging down to the ground level and as a result of severe electric shock, she suffered serious physical injuries at her thigh, chest and left arm. She was saved by her father, although her father too suffered some minor injuries in saving her from being electrocuted. It is averred that she was taken to Government District Hospital, Kathua on the same day and looking to the condition of petitioner, the doctors attending her had no option but to amputate her left arm from the middle. It is further averred that the amputation was performed on 14-6-2001 and discharged from the hospital on 26-6-2001. It is averred that FIR No. 14 dated 25-5-2001 also came to be registered. It is further averred that due to amputation of left arm of petitioner, her life has been badly crippled in performing day-to-day mundane activities and she has been going through acute depression of inferiority complex. It is further averred that apart from being in the hospital and making expenses in her treatment, the petitioner has been suffering from pain and going through psychological trauma, thus she deserves to be adequately compensated.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that due to negligence and carelessness on the part of respondents, particularly respondent No. 3, in maintaining and rectifying the electric wires, petitioner has become handicapped. He further contended that in terms of Section 33 of the J&K Electricity Act, 1997 (1940 AD), the respondents were under obligation to conduct a statutory inquiry in this regard, but the respondents did not prefer to hold inquiry, thus in this way they have not only committed breach of statutory provisions, but they are also liable for tortious liability and petitioner deserves to be compensated adequately.

4. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents denying that there was any leakage of power from the power system maintained by the respondents or there was any negligence on the part of respondents in maintaining the power lines. Further, it is averred that the accident took place due to the contributory negligence on the part of petitioner and her father, as her father was illegally extracting the power without taking any legal connection from the department and was hooking the main lines.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the file.

6. A perusal of objections reveals that the respondents have admitted that the petitioner had received severe electric shock due to falling of service line and that the said accident had taken place on 25-5-2001 at about 6 a.m. However, their stand is that the said accident had taken place due to the negligence of petitioner and her father, as the father of petitioner was illegally extracting power without taking any legal connection from the department.

7. Although the stand of respondents is that the said accident was the result of negligence on the part of petitioner and her father, however, in paragraph-iii of preliminary objects filed by the respondents it is averred that on the preceding day of accident, due to wind storm the service line from the house of father of petitioner had fallen down and the petitioner while passing though the nearby field came in contact with the bare portion of service line, as a result of which she received electric shock in her hand and arm, when her father tried save her, he also got an electric shock, meaning thereby the respondents have themselves admit