The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991, including the definition of 'hazardous substance', the liability of the owner, and the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector.

SANJAY YADAV, J.

1. On 14.5.2015 a Bus bearing registration No. 20-GA-5176 carrying a marriage party met with an accident when it came in contact with high tension electric line which led to passing of current through entire bus resulting in injuries and causalities. One of the passenger who lost life was respondent no.1's son Nitin who was 8 years of age was studying. In a claim case filed under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- was awarded in favour of the respondent no.1 against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

2. As the accident had occurred due to high tension electric line coming in contact with the bus in question, respondent no.1 brought a proceeding under the provision of The Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act of 1991") Additional Collector, who was in seisin with the matter while negativing the objection raised by the petitioners as to maintainability of the proceedings on the ground that the claimant having already availed the remedy under the Act of 1988 cannot for the same accident file a claim under 1991 Act and that Additional Collector has nothing jurisdiction to entertain the claim and that it was the negligence of the driver which led to the accident, awarded the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- holding that it being the primary responsibility of the petitioners herein to maintain the high tension Electric supply line and having failed to prove to have discharged their duty to maintain the same which resulted in the accident.

3. Aggrieved of the order present writ petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the sweep of the expression "owner" as defined under Section 2(g) of 1991 Act. That it was the negligence of driver which resulted in the bus coming in contact with live high tension electric line. That the Additional Collector usurped the powers of the Collector who is the only Authority to entertain claim under 1991 Act.

4. Act of 1991 was enacted to provide for public liability insurance for the purpose of providing immediate relief to the persons affected by accident occurring which handling any hazardous substance and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

5. The expression "hazardous substance" under Section 2(d) means "any substance or preparation which is defined as hazardous substance under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and exceeding such quantity as may be specified, by notification by the Central Government". Similarly, expression "handling" find its meaning under Section 2(c) of 1991 Act "in relation to any hazardous substance, means the manufacture, processing, treatment, package, storage, transportation by vehicle use, Collector, destruction, conversion, offering for sale, transfer or the title of such hazardous substance.

6. Electricity is a hazardous substance, is not in dispute, nor it is an issue in the case at hand. Section 3 of 1991 Act mandates for liability to give relief in certain cases on the principle of no fault. Sub Section (1) whereof provides for that where death or injury to any person (other than a workman) or damage to any property has resulted from an accident the owner shall be liable to give such relief as is specified in the schedule for such death, injury of damage". The expression "owner" is defined under Section 2 (g) to mean:

"a person who owns, or has control over handling any hazardous substance at the time of accident and includes,-

(i) in the case of firm, any of its partners;

(ii) in the case of an association, any of its members; and

(iii) in the case or a company, any of its directors, managers, secretaries or other officers who is directly in charge of, and is responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company"

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the electricity which was being run through high tension electric wire which is also owned by the petitioner.

7. Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of 1