The principle of strict liability applies to activities involving hazardous exposure to human life, holding the responsible parties liable for compensation irrespective of negligence or carelessness.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum towards compensation for the death of her husband Bikram Sahu in electrocution.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner are that on 14.7.2008 at about 6.30 A.M. while her husband-Bikali @ Bikram Sahu was going to bari to make water, he came in contract with a live electric wire snapped from the pole, as a result of which, he succumbed to injuries. On the same day, the matter was reported to the Balikuda Police Station, whereafter U.D. Case No.7 of 2008 was registered. The dead body, on completion of inquest, was sent for autopsy. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem, had opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to electrical burn injuries and its complication. With this factual scenario, this writ petition has been filed for compensation.

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating therein that the writ petition involves serious disputed questions of fact and as such is not maintainable. It is stated that the deceased came in contact with the electric wire at the back side of his house, which was of his own line. There was no negligence or latches on the part of the opposite parties. It is further stated that no L.T. line was passing through the bari of the deceased. The L.T. line is 140 meter away from the house of the deceased. The opposite parties were no way responsible for the alleged accident. It is further stated that the FIR and the investigation reports are not conclusive evidence and that the police papers do not prove that the deceased had not died any electrical accident by coming in contact with electrical line. It is further stated that the petitioner had not furnished any documents in support of her relationship and status with the deceased and the age and wages of the deceased. None of the villagers and the petitioner intimated the authorities regarding the accident at any point of time.

4. Heard Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 the opposite parties can deny the liability on the ground that the death of Bikram Sahu 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