IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Hafiza Bano D/o Abdul Qayoom – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir, through Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
MA No. 163 of 2005, CM No. 7414 of 2022
Decided On : 13-10-2023
negligence - electrocution - 33 KV electric wire - MACT cases - compensation - strict liability - negligence of the officials/officers of the Power Development Department - loss of future earnings - medical expenses - pain and suffering - loss of amenities of life - cost of artificial limb
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff suffered electric shock and burn injuries to her right arm and left leg due to coming in contact with a live 33 KV conductor. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding no negligence on the part of the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff suffered injuries due to electrocution and that the negligence of the officials/officers of the Power Development Department was responsible for the accident. The court awarded compensation of Rs. 7,89,000 along with interest to the plaintiff.
Issues: 1) Whether the injuries were caused to the plaintiff due to electrocution? 2) Whether the incident has occurred due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the officials/officers of the respondent/defendant-department? 3) To what compensation plaintiff/appellant is entitled to in case point Nos. 1 and 2 above are determined in her favour?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the negligence of the officials/officers of the Power Development Department was responsible for the accident, and the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under the principles governing assessment of compensation in MACT cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court were set aside. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed in the above terms.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2005 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as “the trial court”), whereby the suit of the appellant/ plaintiff for recovery of compensation filed against the respondents/defendants has been dismissed.
2. It appears that the appellant/plaintiff filed an application under Order 33 of CPC for grant of permission to file a suit as an indigent person for recovery of an amount of Rs. 12.50 lacs as compensation for the disability suffered by her to her right arm on account of electrocution. Vide order dated 15.02.1999, passed by the learned trial court, the appellant was declared as an indigent person and she was permitted to file the suit as such.
3. It was pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that on 05.03.1997, she had gone out for grazing her cattle in the field in village Amkooth Sher Bibi, Tehsil Banihal. At about 5.00 p.m, while she was coming back to her home alongwith her cattle, she came in contact with 33 KV sub-transmission line, that passes through that area. According to the plaintiff, a live wire was hanging at the height of 4/5 ft. above the ground level. The plaintiff is stated to have come in contact with the live electric wire, as a result of which she received burn injuries to her right arm and left leg. She fell down unconscious and was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Banihal by the local villagers. The plaintiff remained under treatment at Primary Health Centre, Banihal upto 07.03.1997, whereafter she was referred to the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu. She remained admitted over there from 07.03.1997 to 22.03.1997. During the treatment of the plaintiff, her right upper limb below the elbow level was amputated. According to the plaintiff, her father spent an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on her treatment.
4. FIR No. 26/1997 for offence under Section 337 RPC was registered in respect of the incident with the Police Station, Banihal and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Banihal against the employees of the Power Development Department.
5. The plaintiff claimed that due to the burn injuries and amputation of her right arm, she has suffered mental depression and is unable to write or to do any other work without right upper limb. The plaintiff further claimed that she was a student of 8th Class and her education has been adversely affected due to the accident. It was claimed by the plaintiff that due to the kind of disability which she has suffered, her future prospects including her marriage prospects have drastically diminished.
6. It was contended that the occurrence is direct result of negligence and mismanagement on the part of the officials/officers of the defendant-department, as they were under obligation to maintain the transmission lines in accordance with the rules so as to avoid any danger to human life or live stock. The plaintiff/claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 12.50 lacs as compensation from the defendants.
7. The appellants/defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. In their written statement, the defendants claimed that as per the rules relating to maintenance of 33 KV lines, clearance from the ground level is required to be upto 17 ft. and as per the report of the Executive Engineer, the ground clearance of 33 KV line at the relevant spot was 20 ft. On this ground, it has been contended by the defendants that there was no chance of the plaintiff coming in contact with the live wire. It was also contended by the defendants that current in 33 KV wire is so high that anybody coming in contact with the live wire would get charred to death without any chance of survival. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the plaintiff despite coming in contact with 33 KV live wire received only burn injuries. It
Jakir Hussain vs. Sabir and others
Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors
M. C. Mehta and another vs. Union of India and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide amplitude of power conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the principles governing assessment of compensa....
In electrocution cases, strict liability applies, and the plaintiff must only prove injury from electrocution, not negligence of the electricity provider.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the concept of strict liability, and the duty of the electricity department to maintain elec....
Electricity providers are strictly liable for accidents caused by negligence in maintaining infrastructure, with compensation calculated based on the deceased's earnings and family dependency.
The court held that the respondents' gross negligence in failing to provide safety measures around the transformer led to the electrocution of a minor, warranting compensation for the victim's injuri....
The court established liability of the State as a welfare body to compensate for injuries to minors, asserting that minors cannot be held liable for negligence while emphasizing the negligence of the....
The judgment establishes the application of the doctrine of strict liability in cases of hazardous activities, the method for computing compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, and the liability of ....
The liability of power department officials for negligence resulting in injury and the determination of compensation based on the extent of disability and future earning potential.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability for compensation due to negligence resulting in an electric shock and the application of principles from motor accidents claims cases....
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.