IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that state entities managing hazardous activities have a strict liability to compensate victims for harm caused, irrespective of any negligence on the part of the victims.

JUDGMENT :

MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution to seek a writ of mandamus to the effect that respondents be directed to pay them compensation of Rs. 30.00 lacs for the loss suffered on account of electrocution of the sole bread earner of their family due to the negligence of the respondents; to appoint the male member of the family in the respondent Department, on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The case of the petitioners is that the husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioners 2 to 5, Nazir Ahmad Khan, went to offer Maghrib prayers on 24th July, 2013 at around 07:40 p.m. and on his way to the mosque 11000 KV live electric supply line fell from the transformer on the head of said Nazir Ahmad resulting in his on-the-spot death. The incident is attributed to the negligence of the respondents. A case in this behalf is also stated to have been registered with the concerned police which also reflects the electric shock as the cause of death of the deceased Nazir Ahmad Khan. The petitioners have pleaded that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family who was earning Rs. 500/- per day in his capacity as a Master Carpenter. The petitioners, therefore, plead to have been deprived of the earnings of the deceased making them vulnerable for starvation. The petitioners, as such, are seeking compensation of Rs. 30.00 lacs for the loss caused to them because of the negligence of the respondents.

3. The respondents, upon notice, appeared and filed their reply, resisting the claim of the petitioners. They have sought dismissal of the writ petition for having raised the disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon in the writ proceedings. The respondents have pleaded that the deceased had fiddled with the electric supply lines which resulted in falling of an electric supply line causing death of the deceased, therefore, the negligence is attributed to the deceased.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made.

5. Admit.

6. The admitted position of the case is that the deceased has died on 24th July, 2013 at around 7:40 p.m. because of an electric shock received by him through 11000 KV line attached with the electric transformer installed at Dazan Lachpora, Uri. The liability, however, to compensate the petitioners for the loss caused to them due to the death of the deceased is denied by the respondents on the count that there was no negligence on their part.

7. In order to appreciate the issue raised in the writ petition as regards the liability of compensation it is essential to note as to how the death of the deceased has been caused. The death of the deceased has, as taken note of hereinbefore, admittedly been caused because of an electric shock received by the deceased through 11000 KV Electric Supply Line of the area. It cannot be said that the respondents were not liable to maintain the electric supply lines of the area and take good care of any unforeseen situation that may result in a damage to human life and property.

8. The respondents have stated in their reply that the negligence in the incident in question is attributable to the deceased only as he fiddled with the electric transformer. In support of such stance, the respondents have taken refuge in a letter addressed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub-Division Mohra to the SHO of Police Station Bijhama for lodging FIR in the case. The respondents further go on to add that the victim had illegally climbed on 100 KV transformer at Dazan Lachpora (Uri) for unknown reasons as a result of which he sustained shock and died on the spot.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in case titled SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Others V. Timudu Oram reported as (2005) 6 SCC 156.

10. The petitioners have invoked the wr