SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Ori) 166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A. Pasayat, A. Deb, JJ.
SANKARSAN DAS - APPELLANT
Versus
GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 1037 of 1996
Decided On : 19-08-1997

Advocates Appeared:
M. Sinha, S. Sen, B. Dash and D. Sahoo, for the Appellant; B.K. Nayak and J.K. Khuntia, for the Respondent

Electricity companies are liable for accidents caused by their negligence, and the act of God defense is not applicable if the event could have been reasonably anticipated.

Headnote:

NEGLIGENCE - ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 - SECTION 124 - LIABILITY FOR ACCIDENT CAUSED BY ELECTRICITY - ACT OF GOD - COMPENSATION FOR DEATH DUE TO ELECTROCUTION.

Fact of the Case:

Jaitri Das died due to electrocution caused by a snapped electric wire while fetching water from a public tube well. The petitioner, her husband, filed a writ application seeking compensation from the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (GCOL), which had taken over the Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB). GCOL denied negligence and claimed the incident was an act of God due to a heavy storm.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that GCOL was liable for the accident as it failed to establish that it could not have prevented the escape of the electric current. The court also held that the act of God defense was not applicable as the storm was not so unexpected that no reasonable human foresight could have anticipated it.

Issues: 1. Whether GCOL was liable for the accident caused by the snapped electric wire. 2. Whether the act of God defense was applicable in this case.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. GCOL was liable for the accident as it failed to establish that it could not have prevented the escape of the electric current. 2. The act of God defense was not applicable as the storm was not so unexpected that no reasonable human foresight could have anticipated it.

Final Decision: The court directed GCOL to pay compensation of Rs. 45,000/- to the petitioner, out of which Rs. 35,000/- was to be kept in a fixed deposit for five years and the balance amount was to be paid to the petitioner immediately.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, J. - One Jaitri Das lost her life on account of electrocution on 2.4. 1994. Her husband has filed this application for a direction to the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited for (in Short, "the Corporation") payment of compensation. It is to be noted here that earlier Orissa State Electricity Board (in short, "OSEB") was opposite party No. 1 and the Corporation has been substituted after it took over OSEB.

2. Petitioner's case in short is that the Jaitri (hereinafter referred to as (these 'deceased') was about 47 years, got electrocuted due to snapping of electric wire from the pole, while she was going to bring water from the public tube well in village Thouri under the jurisdiction of Kendrapara Police Station. Snapping of the line was on account of gross negligence and improper maintenance of the electric wire. While the accident has been accepted by the opposite parties, it has been stated that the allegation of improper maintenance is not correct. On the contrary due to heavy storm the line snapped and there being no negligence involved the petitioner is not liable to get any compensation. It is stated that at the most the act can be described as an act of God, and therefore, no compensation is payable.

3. 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, or something lost or withheld. The term 'compensation' etymologically suggests the image of balancing one thing against another; its primary signification is equivalence, and the secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent. Pecuniary damages are to be valued on the basis of 'full compensation'. That concept was first stated by Lord Blackborn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1980) AC 25.

4. The "Rule of Law" requires that the wrongs should not remain unredressed. All the individuals or persons committing wrongs should be liable in an action for damages for breach of civil law or for criminal punishment. "Compensation" means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given or to make amends for loans, recompense, remuneration or pay; it need not, therefore, necessarily be in terms of money, because law may specify principles on which and manner in which compensation is to be -determined as given. Compensation is an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person demnified may receive equal value for his loss; or be made whole in respect of his injury; something given or obtained as equivalent; rendering of equivalent in value or amount, an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing receive; recompense for whole injury suffered; remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage of every description. The expression "compensation" is not ordinarily used as in equivalent to "damages" although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damages in an action for a breach. The term "compensation" as pointed out 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 or injury sustained. "Compensation" is a return for a loss or damages sustained. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. "Amends" is return for something that is faulty in ourselves or towards others, "Satisfaction" is that which satisfies the individ







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top