Back
1996 Supreme(Ori) 195
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.N. Phukan, A. Pasayat, JJ.
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA - APPELLANT
Versus
CHAIRMAN, ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 05-11-1996
An electricity board is liable to pay compensation for the death caused by electrocution due to the negligence of its functionaries.
Headnote:
NEGLIGENCE - ELECTRICITY - LIABILITY OF ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR DEATH CAUSED BY ELECTROCUTION - ACT OF GOD - VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENT - COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
A minor boy, Bipin Behera, was electrocuted when a live electric wire fell on him. The boy's father filed a writ petition seeking compensation from the Orissa State Electricity Board (now Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd.) for the negligence of its functionaries.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Corporation was liable to pay compensation to the petitioner as it failed to establish that it could not have prevented the escape of the electric current. The court also held that the defense of 'act of God' was not available to the Corporation as the accident could have been anticipated and prevented.
Issues: 1. Whether the Corporation was negligent in causing the death of the deceased? 2. Whether the defense of 'act of God' was available to the Corporation? 3. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Corporation was negligent in causing the death of the deceased as it failed to take adequate safety precautions to prevent the snapping of the electric wire. 2. The court held that the defense of 'act of God' was not available to the Corporation as the accident could have been anticipated and prevented. 3. The court awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the petitioner, out of which Rs. 45,000/- was to be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of five years in the names of the parents.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated above.
JUDGMENT :
A. Pasayat, J. - Bipin Behera alias Bapina Behera (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), a minor boy who had not even reached teen age, having lost his life by electrocution on 19.6.1994, this writ application has been filed by his father for a direction to the Orissa State Electricity Board, now Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (in short, 'the Corporation') to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
2. The case of the petitioner sans unnecessary details essentially is as follows:
On 19.6.1994, deceased was found lying dead near an electric pole. He lost his life due to electrocution as a live electric wire fell down on him being disconnected from the pole and resulted in instantaneous death. At the fateful moment the deceased was tending cattle. He was taken to Subdivisional Medical Hospital and was declared dead by the Medical Officer. The matter was reported at the Jaipur Police Station and U.D. Case No. 29 of 1994 was registered. Postmortem was conducted in the Jaipur Subdivisional Hospital, and the cause of death was found to be on account of injury sustained by electrocution. Investigation was undertaken by the police. Death certificate and inquest report were prepared. On account of negligence of functionaries of opposite parties high voltage electric line got snapped and the accident occurred resulting in death of an innocent person, a minor boy. The concerned Subdivisional Officer (Electrical) of the Corporation was requested to compensate the petitioner, but no action was taken and the petitioner was forced to file the writ, application for redressal.
3. In the counter affidavit filed, the Subdivisional Officer has refuted the stand that the conductor got detached and fell down as a result of which electric line came in contact with the deceased. On the. contrary, it is stated that one of the cows being tended by the deceased, dashed against the low tention line below and overhead line conductor, and all on a sudden it got snapped due to heavy jerk due to which the deceased got electrocuted. The stand that the Corporation is negligent, is denied. It is pleaded that the lines were drawn in compliance with Rules 74 and 76 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (in short 'the Rules'). As required under the aforesaid Rules, all sorts of safety precautions were taken to prevent loss of human and. animal lives. The place where the accident took place was a paddy field and over-head line was drawn cross country-wise. Before arrival of monsoon, the lines are checked to prevent loss of human and animal lives. The conductors which are being used for supply of line are of approved categories as per the Rules. It is also pleaded that the accident was an act of God and there was no human control over it. Therefore, there was no violation of any statutory requirement.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after having accepted snapping of electric lines, it is not fair on the part of the Corporation to plead that the accident was an act of God, and there was no human control over it, and/or that no negligence was involved.
It is stated by Mr. B.R. Sarangi, learned Counsel for the Corporation that many times suggestions have been given to prevent recurrence of the type of accidents which result from snapping of wires, and subsequently resulting in electrocution. As possible care and caution has been taken and preventive measures adopted, no negligence can be attributed to warrant grant of compensation.
5. Preventive measures suggested to be taken may provide safety in future. Those cannot be pressed into service to deny liability of the Corporation. The term 'compensation' as stated in the Oxford Dictionary, signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered. 'Damages' on the other hand constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss of injury sustained, the value estimated in money, of something lost or withheld. The term 'compensation' etymologically suggest
