The O.S.E.B. is strictly liable for harm caused to persons due to accidents in the operation of its hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, such as the transmission of electricity, and cannot escape liability by pleading inevitable accident or act of God.

P. C. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner claims compensation of Rupees 1,00,000/- from the Orissa State Electricity Board (hereinafter called 'the O. S. E. B. ') and its functionaries for the death of his wife who was electrocuted when she came in contact with a live conductor which had snapped and was lying on the ground.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the mishap was solely due to the negligence of the opposite parties who had failed to maintain the line in proper order, in utter disregard to the statutory safeguards. The opposite parties, i. e. the O. S. E. B. and its functionaries, have filed a counter denying its liability.

( 3 ) THE fact that the petitioner's wife was electrocuted when she came in contact with a live conductor which had snapped and was lying on the ground, is not disputed. However, the allegation of negligence and poor supervision is denied. The stand taken by the opposite parties in reflected in paragraph 7 of their counter which reads thus :". . . . THERE might be the death if the lady due to the electric shock but these opposite parties are no way responsible for the death of the wife of the petitioner, since these opposite parties are not aware of the fact that when the snapped conductor was fallen on the public road. The lineman of the area at about 5 a. m. at Gollasahi, Bellaguntha got the information that a conductor was fallen on the road and knowing this the lineman on his own disconnected the A. B. switch immediately. Thereafter at about 6. 30 A. M. he informed the matter to the Jr. Engineer. "it is thus the case of the opposite parties that they are not guilty of any negligence, and hence no liability can be saddled on them. It appears that after the mishap, the matter was enquired into by the Electrical Inspector who had visited the spot and submitted a report (Annexure-B/ 1) to the effect that "the fatal electrical accident had occurred due to snapping of one of phase conductors from the I. T. O. H. line in the street which have outlived their service for more than 30 years and mechanically weak unsound due to aging. " (Emphasis supplied ). The police investigation also indicates that the death was due to electrocution. Thus, on the basis of the material on record, it cannot be denied that Smt. A. Tarini Patra, wife of the petitioner, was electrocuted.

( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that the facts on record indicate lack of care on the part of the O. S. E. B. and as such, he is entitled to compensation.

( 5 ) DURING the course of arguments, a faint reference was also made to the principle of strict liability - the rule laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330.

( 6 ) IN reply, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that generation and transmission of electricity may be a hazardous activity, but that by itself cannot be a ground for holding the opposite parties liable. It is further submitted that the snapping of conductor being an inevitable accident, liability ought not to be fastened on the opposite parties.

( 7 ) HAVING heard counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to agreewith the submission advanced by the opposite parties. It is to be noticed that generation and transmission of electricity by the O. S. E. B. or other authority is by virtue of the provisions contained in the Electricity Act, 1910 read with the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and the mere fact that the generation and transmission of electricity is a hazardous occupation, may not by itself give rise to liability. But, if it is a case of negligence, it would be no defence to fall back on the plea that transmission was under statutory authority. However, it cannot be denied that the more hazardous the activity is, the greater is the responsibility and higher is the standard of care and caution to be exercised in carrying out the activity and, in such a situation we feel that even a slight negligence on the part of the undertaking is sufficient