Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1080
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
Alamelu
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Energy Department & Others
W.P.(MD)No.7205 of 2011 & M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
Decided On : 29-02-2012
For the Petitioner:A. Rahul, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - M. Alaguthevan, Special Government Pleader, R2 to R5 - S.M.S. Johnny Basha, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of strict liability in cases of electrocution, where the supplier of electricity is held responsible for preventing foreseeable risks and maintaining the supply system.
Headnote:
Negligence - Electrocution - Electricity Act, 2003, Section 68 - The court discussed the incident of electrocution, the responsibility of the Electricity Board, and the legal provisions under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's husband died due to electrocution caused by electric wires falling on him. The petitioner sought compensation from the Electricity Board, claiming negligence on their part. The Electricity Board denied liability, attributing the incident to heavy rain and wind.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the incident was a result of negligence on the part of the Electricity Board, as they failed to maintain the supply system and conduct pre-monsoon inspections. The court referred to the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari to establish the concept of strict liability in such cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Electricity Board was responsible for the incident, and the determination of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Electricity Board, as the supplier of electricity, had the duty to maintain the supply system and prevent foreseeable risks. The court applied the principles of strict liability and referred to the multiplier method to assess compensation.
Final Decision: The court directed the Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs.7,27,000/- as compensation to the petitioner, along with interest at 6%. The Writ Petition was allowed with costs quantified at Rs.8,000/-.
1. This Writ Petition, at the instance of a widow and eye witness to the unfortunate incident of electrocution of her husband, seeks a direction to the Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) as compensation.
2. The husband of the petitioner by name Rajaram was conducting a hotel in the name and style of "M/s.Sarojini Mess". The petitioner was assisting her husband in the conduct of hotel. The husband of the petitioner was doing considerable business in view of the strategic location of the shop. He was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The hotel was situated at Natham-Dindigul Main Road, Meenakshipuram, Natham. There were two electric poles in front of the hotel. The electricity cables from the said poles were passing in front of the shop very close to the entrance and that too, at a low level. Even though the husband of the petitioner made complaints to the Electricity Department on many occasions, requesting them to lift the electric wires to higher level from the ground, the same was not considered.
3. While so, on 04 May, 2011, at about 05.00 a.m., the petitioner along with her husband were proceeding to open the hotel. Suddenly, the electric wires got snapped and fell on her husband who was ahead of her. He was electrocuted in the immediate presence of the petitioner. Though the petitioner tried to rescue, bystanders prevented her from touching him. The husband of the petitioner died after screaming and crying in front of her own eyes. Electricity was later switched off and thereafter, the body was removed for post-mortem. The police registered a case in Crime No.261 of 2011 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The post-mortem certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Natham indicates that her husband died of shock and hemorrhage due to electrocution.
4. According to the petitioner, the death was solely on account of the negligence on the part of the officials of Electricity Board. The deceased was aged 39 years as on the date of his death. He was survived by the petitioner and two minor children. The sudden death caused immense pain and sufferings to the family. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.
5. The Junior Engineer, attached to Natham Electricity Distribution Circle filed a counter, wherein it was indicated that due to heavy rain and heavy wind, a branch of tree fell on the electric line and thereby, the wire was snapped as it was lying at a low level. The snapping of line was not due to improper maintenance. It was due to heavy rain and wind. Therefore, the department was not responsible for the incident in question. In short, the Electricity Board disowned their liability.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the incident in question was solely on account of the negligence of the officials of Electricity Board. The Board was expected to maintain the line. However, they miserably failed in their duty. It was only on account of gross negligence, the tree fell on the electric line. Therefore, the Electricity Board cannot escape from the liability.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that a branch of tree fell on the electric line and that was the sole cause for the incident. The Electricity Board cannot be made responsible for such unforeseen incidents and act of God. Therefore, no liability could be fastened on the Board.
ANALYSIS:
8. There is no dispute with regard to the incident or the cause of death. The first information report in Crime No.261 of 2011 on the file of Natham Police Station clearly shows that Mr.Rajaram died due to electrocution.
9. The Electricity Board wanted the Board to be relieved of responsibility to pay compensation. According to the Electricity Board, due to heavy rain and heavy wind, a branch of tree fell on the electric line and thereby, the wire was snapped as it was lying at a low level. The snapping of
