JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. (Oral). - The petitioner herein approached this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2 crores to the petitioner, who got electrocuted from a broken electric pole lying on the street with live electric wires attached to it, resulting with amputation of both arms of the petitioner.

2. In brief, the facts as enumerated in the writ petition, are that on 01.07.2016 at 4 PM, when the petitioner, who was aged 10 years at the time of unfortunate and heart-wrenching incident, was returning from school, near Bhogpur Mandi, Sohna, she came into contact with live electric wires attached with broken electric pole lying on the street, which wires were unguarded. The father of the petitioner immediately rushed the petitioner to the nearest hospital but considering her serious condition, she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. Thereafter, considering the critical medical condition of the petitioner, doctors decided to amputate both arms of the petitioner in order to save her life, which caused 100% permanent disability to her. The father of the petitioner approached various authorities about the negligence of the concerned officials of the respondent-Nigam in performing their duties but his pleas fell on deaf ears. An FIR No.520 dated 13.09.2016 was registered under Section 338 IPC at Police Station Sohna, District Gurugram on account of this incident. The factum of broken electric pole was in the knowledge of the officials of the respondent-Nigam, however, due to their negligence in not taking appropriate timely action, the petitioner came into contact with live electric wires and lost both her arms.

3. Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner lost both her arms and the accident caused her 100% permanent disability owing to the negligence on the part of the respondents and therefore, they are liable to compensate the petitioner. He relies upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others 1987 (1) SCC 395 to contend that if any harm results to any one on account of an accident in the operation of hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, the enterprise running such activity is absolutely liable to compensate, regardless whether it is carried on carefully or not, as it is under obligation that such activity must be conducted with highest standards of safety. He further relies upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari 2002 (1) CCC 685 (SC) wherein it has been held that electricity board is liable to pay compensation even in cases where there was no negligence on its part. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 14046 of 2012 titled as Raman Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 02.07.2013 wherein while dealing with the case of a child, who had suffered a triple amputation of limbs, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs.60 lakhs, apart from issuing other directions to the respondent-Nigam.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5 would submit that the electric pole was broken down due to a motor vehicular accident caused by an identified vehicle. No information was provided to the respondent-Nigam in that regard by any passer-by or villager and meanwhile, the petitioner came into contact with live wires attached to the broken pole and therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the officials of respondent-Nigam. The officials of the respondent-Nigam on receiving the information regarding the broken electric pole immediately repaired the same and therefore, neither the respondent-Nigam nor its employees are liable to pay any compensation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the pa