Electricity providers are strictly liable for electrocution incidents, and courts can award compensation exceeding regulatory limits based on judicial precedents for similar cases.

ORDER :

The Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation towards the death of the petitioner's son namely Bharathpandian, aged about 26 years due to the electrocution as a result of coming into contact with the live wire that was snapped.

2. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that the said Bharathpandian aged about 26 years was their elder son and has scored 455 out of 500 in the 10th standard and 1028 out of 1200 in the 12th standard. After completing his schooling he pursued B.E. Mechanical Engineering at the University College of Engineering. However, owing to financial constraints he discontinued his Engineering studies and completed his Senior Grade Typewriting both in Tamil and English and had applied for employment relating to the same and was trying for public employment. While so, on 11.05.2023, when he was returning after visiting agricultural lands at Mettukulam, Mungapattu Village, Kalur Post, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, when he was nearing agricultural lands owned by one Vinayakam a high density electric wire that got snapped between two poles was lying on the ground and unfortunately the said Bharathpandian came into contact of the live wire and died. A case under Cr.No.200 of 2023 was also registered. It can be seen that he died only on electrocution. Therefore, the compensation is sought for.

3. The Writ Petition is resisted by filing a counter affidavit. The above facts are admitted. It is also stated that pursuant to the First Information Report, the Post Mortem report states the deceased would have died due to electrocution. However, final opinion is reserved for want of chemical analysis report. In the counter in paragraph No.7 it further states that as per the Board Circular dated 16.10.2019 which is applicable as on date of death a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-is only payable as compensation and the same will be paid. It is their contention that more than Rs.5,00,000/- cannot be claimed by the petitioner.

4. This matter is no longer res integra and I had considered the issue with reference to the negligence in the order dated 17.02.2025 in Lakshmi Vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director (W.P.No.34872 of 2024) and with reference to liability it is held that TANGEDCO is strictly liable. The paragraph No.7 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

7. The law is clearly established that strict liability applies to the 2020 SCC Online Mad 5203 2012 SCC Online Mad 3931 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis(Uploaded on:06/03/2025 07:52:08 pm) respondent authorities. It is the duty of electricity boards and relevant authorities to ensure the installation of necessary protective devices to prevent mishaps arising from live electrical wires. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in M.P.Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar, has emphasized that in the event of a live wire snapping and falling onto a public road, the electric current must be automatically disrupted. This highlights the obligation of the responsible authorities to implement adequate safety measures to mitigate risks and prevent such hazardous incidents. Devices such as Residual current device (RCD) and Earth-leakage circuit breaker (ELCB) can be installed to detect imbalance between live and neutral conductors, indicating leakage currents, and disconnect the circuit swiftly to prevent harm. The aforementioned case further establishes that the principle of 'strict liability' shall be imposed upon the authority responsible for foreseeing potential harm and preventing it by taking reasonable precautions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raman Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 551 (2014) 15 SCC 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis(U