A writ application for payment of compensation for the death of a person in electrocution is maintainable when the undisputed facts clearly reveal the same. The court also discussed the doctrine of strict liability and its exceptions, the principle of res ipsa loquitur, and the duty of authorities to prevent mishaps in cases involving hazardous activities.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Surendra Sahoo in electrocution.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that on 29.8.2004 at about 5 A.M when Surendra Sahoo, nephew of the petitioner no.1, had gone to pluck flower, he came in contact with the electric wire, as a result of which he died due to electrocution. On hearing the cry, the husband of the petitioner no.1 rushed to the spot. He also came in contact with the electric wire and died due to electrocution. On the basis of FIR lodged by petitioner no.1, a case was registered. The police made inquest and sent the dead body for post mortem. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the cause of death was due to electrocution.

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating therein that the deceased came in contact with the electric wire at the back side of house, which was taken by the neighbour, namely, Sudersan Behera unauthorisedly. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. It is further stated that G.R Case No. 958 of 2004 was registered against Sudersan Behera and Damodar Pradhan, which is pending. It is further stated that the petitioners have not furnished any documents in support of their relationship and status with the deceased and the age and wages of the deceased. The legal heir certificate and the certificate showing the age of the deceased have not been produced. Further no complaint was made before the authority. The opposite parties had no knowledge about the theft by hooking. None of the villagers or the petitioners intimated the authorities regarding the unauthorized consumption of electricity or hooking. It is further stated that the opposite parties had taken all cares and adequate steps for proper maintenance of the electric lines.

4. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

5. Really two points arise for consideration of this Court ;

(1) Whether a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for payment of compensation when death is caused due to electrocution ?

(2) Whether opposite parties can deny the liability on the ground that the death of Surendra Kumar Sahoo was due to act of a third party ?

Point Nos.1 and 2.

6. An identical matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of T. Bimala v. Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack and others, 2015(I) OLR 637. It was held as follows:-

“9. The language of Article 226 of the Constitution does not admit of any limitation on the powers of the High Court for the exercise of jurisdiction thereunder. The power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The apex Court in catena of the decisions laid down certain guidelines and self-imposed limitations have been put there subject to which the High Courts would exercise jurisdiction. Those guidelines cannot be mandatory in all circumstances. When a citizen approaches the High Court in writ petition that a wrong is caused, the High Court will step into protect him, whether that wrong was done by the State or an instrumentality of the State. The High Court cannot pull down the shutters.

10. In M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151, the apex Court observed as under :

“Next is the issue of “maintainability of the writ petition” before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants though initially very strongly contended that while the negligence aspect has been dealt with under penal laws already, the claim for compensation cannot but be left to be adjudicated by the civil laws and thus