1997 Supreme(All) 153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. KATJU
U.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DEHRADUN - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 36885 Of 1996
Decided On : 02/17/1997

Headnote:

PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE ACT, 1991 - SECTION 3(2) - STRICT LIABILITY - ELECTRICITY AS HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2(D) - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 2(D) - PRINCIPLE OF STRICT LIABILITY - RYLANDS V. FLETCHER (1868 LR 3 EX 330) - EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE IN RYLANDS V. FLETCHER - SWING IN FAVOUR OF STRICT LIABILITY - M. C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) - ARTICLE 38(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION - SOCIAL WELFARE STATUTES INCORPORATING STRICT LIABILITY - SECTION 3 OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT 1923 - SECTION 82 A OF THE RAILWAYS ACT, 1890 - SECTION 140 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - FORM II OF THE RULES - SECTION 18(B) - SECTION 4 - SECTION 5 - SECTION 8(1).

Fact of the Case:

The respondent No. 1 and 3 are the father and mother of one late Anil Gurang. They filed a claim petition on 10-7-1995 under Section 6 (1) of the 1991 Act before the collector. True copy of the application is Annexure - 1 to the writ petition. In this application it has been alleged that the applicants are the parents and legal representatives of Late Anil Gurang who was unmarried and employed in Hilton Hotel, Dehradun. Anil Gurand used to financially support his parents from his income. On 16-10-1994 Anil Gurang had gone for a wedding, and while going in the wedding procession the trolly of the band came into contact with an electric wire which had been hanging at a low height of about 10 feet due to negligence of the respondants in the claim petition. There was no sign or indication about this electric wire which could be seen by anyone so as to give a warning. This wire came into contact with the trolly and consequently caused the death of three workers and one member of the wedding procession (Anil Gurang) on spot. the deceased were Shafiq Ahmed, Bbrampal, Sanjay alias Sonu and Anil Singh Gurang. Three persons were also injured namely, Sudama Thapa, Ajith Singh and Yusuf the proprietor of the band. All these deaths and injuries were caused because the high tension wire was hanging at a height of about 10 feet. It was alleged that the respondants had been negligent since the wire had been hanging at a low height. It was further alleged that on 16-10-1995 when the electric wire came into contact with the trolly band sparks were seen coming from the trolly. A member of the band Zahid escaped injury because he was on a wooden stand and was wearing plastic shoes. Another member of the band Awwal Hasan took some dry stick and removed the wire from the trolly. The injured and the dead persons were taken to the hospital. in the post mortem of the deceased it was revealed that the deaths were due to electric shock. Anil Gurang was 25 years of age when he died. He was the sole earning member in his family and thus the support of his family has come to an end and their lives have been plunged into darkness. Jhalak Bhadur Gurang, the father of Anil Gurang, is 75 years of age and does not get any pension etc. Anil Gurang was earning Rs. 935 per month as an employee of thehilton Hotel and he was likely to get promotion and increment. On the basis of these averments the claim petitioners prayed for award of compensation under the 1999 Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that electricity is a hazardous substance as defined under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and hence it is a hazardous substance for the purposes of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. The Court also held that the principle of strict liability applies in cases of accidents due to hazardous substances, and it is not necessary for the claimant to plead that the death or injury was caused by wrong or negligent act of any person. The Court further held that the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 is a beneficial legislation, and hence it should be construed in a manner so as to give affect to its object than frustrate it.

Issues: 1. Whether electricity is a hazardous substance as defined under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and hence it is a hazardous substance for the purposes of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991? 2. Whether the principle of strict liability applies in cases of accidents due to hazardous substances, and it is not necessary for the claimant to plead that the death or injury was caused by wrong or negligent act of any person? 3. Whether the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 is a beneficial legislation, and hence it should be construed in a manner so as to give affect to its object than frustrate it?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Electricity is a hazardous substance as defined under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and hence it is a hazardous substance for the purposes of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. 2. The principle of strict liability applies in cases of accidents due to hazardous substances, and it is not necessary for the claimant to plead that the death or injury was caused by wrong or negligent act of any person. 3. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 is a beneficial legislation, and hence it should be construed in a manner so as to give affect to its object than frustrate it.

Final Decision: The petition is dismissed. However, the Court made it clear that in view of Section 8 (1) of the 1991 Act the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 may in addition to the amount awarded to them by the impugned award also institutes any other proceedings, whether by means of a suit or otherwise, before the appropriate forum for claiming further relief and if they do so the said proceedings shall be decided within six months of the institution of the same in accordance with law.