Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20319
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND – Respondent
WP(C)/37535/2007
SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
Electricity providers are liable for ensuring safety, even under natural adverse conditions, as they have a duty to foresee and mitigate risks to human life.
Headnote:
Human Rights - Electricity Board Liability - Human Rights Act, 1993 - Article 21 of the Constitution - Res Ipsa Loquitur - Judicial Review
Fact of the Case:
The Kerala State Electricity Board challenged a Human Rights Commission directive to pay compensation for the electrocution of two women, claiming no violation of human rights occurred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Board's liability was established due to the victims' deaths resulting from a situation outside their control, emphasizing that no negligence could be attributed to the victims.
Issues: Whether the Kerala State Electricity Board violated human rights by failing to prevent electrocutions and whether the Human Rights Commission's order was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The concept of human rights includes the right to life as protected by Article 21, and the Board's circumstances fell under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, making them liable.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, upholding the Human Rights Commission's directive.
JUDGMENT
The Kerala State Electricity Board challenges the directions issued by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- each to the dependants of two women who were electrocuted. The plea projected by the Board is that there is no human right violation in the situation.
2. The Board admitted before the Commission that the accident was due to snapping of a conductor due to the heavy rain and wind and that coconut palm leaf had fallen on the line and the conductor was broken. The area was water-logged and the victims accidentally stepped on to the live conductor and got electrocuted. These facts are sufficient enough to disclose that no act of negligence or omission can be attributed to the victims. The vagaries of nature, as pleaded by the Board before the Commission, are well within those which have to be envisaged and foreseen by the authority entrusted with the duties of transmission of electrical energy.
WPC No.37535 of 2007
2. The concept of human rights, even in terms of the provisions of the Human Rights Act, 1993 encompasses violations of right to life, the right guaranteed under the Constitution of India which means, situation that would show infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution, as also various other matters which may fall within the realm of international averments and documents as may be binding on the Union and States in India. With that, there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order in as much as the deprivation of life is for no fault of the victims, and, on facts, is directly chargeable to a situation to which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. At any rate, ends of justice do not require this Court to extend the writ jurisdiction to erase the order issued by the Human Rights Commission.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge.
ttb WPC No.37535 of 2007
