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

2002 Supreme(MP) 627

ARUN MISHRA
M. P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, JABALPUR – Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR, MANDLA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V.AVASTHY, V.Rusia

ARUN MISHRA, J.

( 1 ) IN the instant writ petition, the question arises whether 'electricity' can be treated as a "hazardous substance" as defined in Section 2 (d) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (for short 'act of 1991') read with Section 2 (e) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short 'act of 1986' ).

( 2 ) CLAIMANT/respondent No. 2 Smt. Sukarti Bai filed an application before the Collector, District Mandla claiming compensation from petitioner M. P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur on account of the death of her husband Kashiram, as the death of her husband took place owing to electrocution while the deceased came in contact with the electric wire.

( 3 ) THE Collector has awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- holding that the electricity is a hazardous substance as per Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.

( 4 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition avers that M. P. Electricity Board is a body duly constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Collector failed to appreciate the legal position properly. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the electricity is not a hazardous substance and the same does not come within th




















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top