The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of electricity suppliers to provide safety measures and the inadequacy of applying the principles of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 in cases of death by electrocution.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - Human life has no price in terms of money. If it is extinguished by electrocution due to the negligence and carelessness of the managers of the power supply, cases of compensation arise. The conduct of the agents of the supplier of electrical energy in their duty to maintain harmless, the supply of potentially dangerous energy and especially through high voltage transmission lines in areas where there is greater probability of humans living in and around habitation is statutorily prescribed in Section 68 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and Rules 29, 44, 45, 46, 59 & 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. To these provisions, there is no need of further elaboration since they have been discussed in some depth by this court in a case of injury by electrocution in Raman vs. State of Haryana & others, (2013) 3 ACC 570 , as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Raman vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, (2014) 15 SCC 1 based on principles of strict and vicarious liability of the tortfeasor for which no special proof of negligence and carelessness is demanded by court by way of evidence, evidence of the kind associated with the civil court gathered for years together. Among other things in Raman, the Supreme Court held that the principle of multiplier and multiplicand in cases of motor accidents do not apply strict sensu to cases of injury and death by electrocution. The Court is yet again called upon to consider the case of compensation sought by the petitioners for the death of their bread winner, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 & 3, who are the minor daughter and son, aged about 15 and 13 years respectively. Respondent No.6, Sukhma -mother of the deceased Mahabir has been arrayed as proforma respondent. She died of old age sometime back according to Rubi, an Oriyan married to the deceased. The three petitioners have approached this Court directly in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for compensation on account of death of Mahabir due to electrocution. The widow was 41 years in 2017, when the petition was filed. The children must be 17 and 15.

2. The family lives in a village in District Bhiwani. A 440 KV transmission line crosses over the village strung to metal Electric Poles. Mahabir met his unfortunate death on 13.08.2013 in the late afternoon when he along with his brother was going to tend their farmland, when suddenly a buffalo appeared aggressively and in order to save himself his hand came into contact with an electric pole through which current was passing. He fell down electrocuted. His brother raised alarm as a result many persons from the village gathered. Unconscious Mahabir was taken to General Hospital, Bhiwani by his brother and other villagers, where he was declared dead. Post mortem was conducted on 14.08.2013, which confirms 'the cause of death was heart failure due to electrocution' recorded in the column of remarks by the Medical Officer. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the opinion of the Doctor. Death certificate is attached with the petition. The matter was also reported to the Police by the Doctors and the news of the accident was also published in the newspapers. Police report and the news items are attached with the petition as Annex P-3 & P-4. The statement of Rajbir, brother of the deceased was recorded by the police as well as all and sundry who reached the spot where the body collapsed state that the cause of the accident was due to coming into contact with an electric pole standing on the village path. There was leakage of electricity. Inquest proceedings were conducted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners by citing the settled position of law that the rule of strict liability and the theory of foreseeable risk make the electricity authorities primarily liable to compensate the sufferer. So long as the vol