The main legal point established is that electricity is considered a hazardous substance, and the liability of the electric supply company cannot be absolved based on the location of the accident. The principle of no fault liability under the Act was also emphasized.

Sanjay Yadvav, J.

1. Shri Nitin Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

Shri Vivek Rusia, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.

2. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2.

With consent matter is heard finally.

3. The question which falls for determination is whether Collector, Respondent No. 2, was justified in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for relief under Public Liability Insurance Act (No. 6 of 1991) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1991), in lieu of death of Sanju, who died due to electrocution, on the ground that he was negligent.

4. Few uncontroverted facts "Sanju (since deceased) aged 22 years on 18-10-2005 went to agriculture field, village Kathotiya to operate motor pump, during course whereof, he received the electric shock when he came in contact with the open parts of the live wire of the starter. The death was instant. Criminal case forming subject matter of Crime No. 94/2005 was registered at Police Station Gadarwara. In the post mortem, the cause of death was shock and syncop due to contact with live electric wire.

5. Legal representatives of the deceased, i.e. the Petitioners, filed an application under Section 6 of the Act of 1991 for relief, before the Collector, Respondent No. 2. The Collector by impugned order rejected the claim for relief by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Electricity Supply Code, 2004, holding that liability of the electric supply company is up to 'outgoing terminal' and since the death of Sanju was due to coming in contact with live wire attached with the starter, the company, Respondent No. 1, cannot be held liable.

6. Assailing the order, it is urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that, the electricity being hazardous substance and the death being due to electrocution, the Collector was not justified in rejecting the claim for relief merely on the ground that the death was due to electric shock received from the starter being beyond the precincts of the Respondent No. 1. It is urged that the liability to give relief under the Act of 1991 being on the principle of no fault as is contemplated vide Section 3 of the Act of 1991, the Collector was not justified in rejecting the same It is urged that the claim for relief was erroneously rejected.

7. Respondent No. 1 on its turn has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition by placing reliance on the judgment in M.P. State Electricity Board Jabalpur v. Collector, Mandla and Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 156.

8. True it is and as has been held in the case of M.P. State Electricity Board Jabalpur v. Collector, Mandla and Anr. (supra) that in respect of claim for compensation and where disputed question of facts are involved, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be the efficacious remedy.

9. However, in a case as the present one, the Petitioners have not rushed to the Court directly but availed the remedy under 1991 Act and it is only when the Collector has declined to grant relief that the Petitioners have filed this petition against the order of the Collector.

10. Even otherwise, the facts in the case at hand that the death of Sanju is due to electrocution is not disputed. The only question is whether the Collector is justified in rejecting the claim for relief on the ground that Sanju was negligent.

11. Electricity is a hazardous substance is no more resintegra and has been held to be in M.P. State Electricity Board Jabalpur v. Collector, Mandla and another, AIR 2003 MP 156 wherein it was observed by His Lord Ship:

17. The next question for consideration is whether a notification is required to be made by the Central Government quantifying the electricity by notification as mentioned in Section 2(d) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. The definition of "hazardous substance" has been given in Section 2(d) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 which is as under:

2(d) -- "hazardous substance" means any substance