The principle of strict liability and the application of res ipsa loquitur in establishing negligence were central to the court's decision in awarding compensation for death in electrocution.

JUDGMENT :

Dr.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.15,00,000/-towards compensation for the death of Pitha @ Rundu Tudu, husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 in electrocution.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that on 28.5.2015 at about 11.00 A.M., while the Pitha @ Rundu Tudu was going to bring back his ox, he came in contact with 11 KV live electric wire lying on a public road due to storm wind in the previous night, as a result of which, he died on the spot. The occurrence was reported before the Rasgobindapur Police Station, whereafter U.D.Case No.10 of 2015 was registered. The dead body on completion of inquest was sent for autopsy. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to electric burn injury. After receiving information about the death of Pitha @ Rundu Tudu, the petitioners were shocked and flabbergasted.

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating therein that the writ petition is not maintainable since for the self-same allegation a case is pending before the National Human Rights Commission in NHRC Case No.6483/18/09/2015 OC. On 27.5.2015 evening due to heavy wind pressure caused by ‘Kala Baisakhi”, the 11 KV conductor was snapped and heavy damage was caused to the electrical network, for which there was disruption of power supply to Rasgobindpur Block area including village Raisol. It is stated that on 28.5.2015, the unfortunate accident took place at around 11.00 hours. The deceased being a cowherd entered the locked area of one Sri Srusti Singh along with the bullock. The 11 KV middle conductor was snapped in invisible manner in the growing bushes and trees inside the private land due to the heavy storm on 27.5.2015 evening. When the bullock was grazing the grasses in the field came in contact with the fallen wire and got electrocuted. The deceased while trying to rescue the bullock, entrapped along bullock and electrocuted. It is stated that the deceased was working as a cowherd and he was 61 years at the time of accident as per the post mortem report. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties in maintaining the supply system.

4. Heard Dr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Nayak, 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 Pitha @ Rundu Tudu 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 there under. 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 observe