Back
2021 Supreme(J&K) 686
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Jamal-ud-Din Gujjar & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State & Ors. – Respondents
OWP No. 394/2010
Decided On : 07-10-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: B.S. Bali
For the Respondent: F.A. Natnoo
IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of strict liability applies to enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous activities, obligating them to compensate for harm caused, irrespective of negligence.
Headnote:
NEGLIGENCE - ELECTROCUTION - Section 304-A RPC - The court discussed the principles of negligence and strict liability in relation to hazardous activities, particularly focusing on the responsibility of the Department of Power Development (PDD) for the electrocution of a minor due to their failure to maintain safe electric lines. The court emphasized that the PDD had a non-delegable duty to ensure safety and that their negligence directly led to the tragic incident. The court's decision was influenced by precedents establishing strict liability for inherently dangerous activities, mandating compensation regardless of negligence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' son, Parvez Ahmad Gujjar, aged 12, was electrocuted after touching a tree that was in contact with a 33 KV transmission line maintained by the Department of Power Development. An FIR was registered against PDD officials, but they were acquitted due to lack of evidence. The petitioners sought compensation for their son's death, attributing it to the negligence of the PDD.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death was caused by the negligent maintenance of the electric line by PDD officials. It held that the PDD had a duty to maintain safe electric lines and that their failure to do so constituted negligence, leading to the tragic incident.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the death of their son due to the negligence of the PDD officials in maintaining the electric line.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of strict liability, stating that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities must compensate for any harm caused, regardless of negligence. The court referenced previous judgments that established the non-delegable duty of care owed by such enterprises to the public.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners a compensation of Rs. 3.00 lac along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the accident, with a stipulation for increased interest if not paid within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
1. The petitioners are unfortunate parents of one Parvez Ahmad Gujjar, aged 12 years, who got electrocuted on 9th June, 2008 when he incidentally touched the standing green tree touching electricity transmission line. On the allegation that 33 KV transmission line maintained by the Department of Power Development was touching a green tree in village Amkoot Sherbibi, which created a short circuit in which the son of the petitioners died when he came in contact with the said tree. FIR came to be registered in Police Station, Banihal against the officials of PDD. The police, after investigation, proved the case under Section 304-A RPC against the officials of PDD and presented the challan before the competent Court of law. The accused persons- PDD officials were, however, later on acquitted by the trial Court in the absence of evidence.
2. Having lost their son due to electrocution, the petitioners filed the instant petition claiming, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to pay appropriate compensation to them on account of untimely death of their son due to electrocution. The petitioners placed reliance upon the FIR, challan as also the medical opinion contained in the post mortem report.
3. The respondents have filed their objections in which they have denied that the accident has taken place due to their negligence. It is submitted by the respondents that the death of son of the petitioners occurred due to Cardio Respiratory Arrest besides electric shock and, therefore, the cause of death cannot be attributed to the negligence of the respondents. It is suggested by the respondents that in case this Court finds the petitioners entitled to any compensation, the same is liable to be paid strictly as per the Government Order No. 328- PDD/2011 dated 24.11.2011 and the petitioners are not entitled to compensation more than Rs. 3.00 lac.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that registration of FIR against the PDD officials, presentation of challan by the police after having proved the case against them and the medical opinion on record clearly demonstrate that the cause of death of son of the petitioners was due to the negligent act of the officials of PDD who had failed to take due care and caution in maintaining the electric line in question. The maintenance of electric lines would include cutting and pruning of trees, for, there is likelihood of such trees and their branches coming into contact with live wires during rainy season or otherwise. The danger of these green trees touching the live wires and creating short circuit cannot be ruled out. The son of the petitioners, who was a nomad roaming in the forest along with his livestock, unfortunately came in contact with such tree. Apart from being vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees, who are maintaining and distributing the electricity through transmission lines are essentially dealing with a dangerous activity which, having regard to its nature, is hazardous, are liable to compensate the petitioners on the principle of strict liability. In that view of the matter, it is the duty of the respondents to take all care and caution to prevent any mishap.
5. Similar question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Aziz Bhat and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2013 (III) SLJ 786. The Division Bench of this Court, after discussing the case law on the point in paragraph 2.2, concluded thus:
"2.2 A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra), after referring to the aft-quoted principles laid down by House of Lords in Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330, has proceeded to hold that the Court must move with the march of time and evolve principles befitting the cause of justice and that law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society. It cannot afford to remain static. Keep
