Liability for electrocution under strict liability doctrine does not depend on negligence; suppliers must ensure safety, and the risks of hazardous activities impose responsibility irrespective of fault.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners herein challenge Ext. P8 order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (1^st respondent). The petitioners were the complainants before the 1^st respondent, seeking damages and compensation for the loss of life of their parents and the husband of the 4^th petitioner due to electrocution, by filing Exts. P5, P6 and P7 complaints. The brief facts are as follows:

2. On 14.06.2021 at about 9.00 p.m., the father of the 1^st petitioner heard his wife screaming. When he rushed to the spot, he saw his wife lying on the ground. Without knowing the gravity of the accident, he attempted to rescue her and suffered an electric shock. Thereafter, the neighbour, who is the husband of the 4^th petitioner herein, rushed to the spot on hearing the scream and, while attempting to rescue them, also suffered an electric shock and lost his life.

3. It is submitted that the deceased Mr Santhosh, father of petitioners 1 to 3, was a “consumer” under Section 2 (15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Electricity Act”), and had been regularly paying electricity bills without default. The accident occurred when the wife of the deceased attempted to remove clothes from the ‘azha’ and suffered an electric shock from a nearby twisted GI cable kept in the verandah of the house. The neighbours, realising that it was a case of electrocution, immediately turned off the main switch. However, the supply was not completely disconnected, and it was later realised that there was leakage of electricity from another source. The matter was reported to the nearby KSEB office. The officials found that the leakage was from the supply wire connected to the post. The victims were taken to the hospital, but they succumbed to their injuries.

4. Ext. P1 FIR was registered. On the very next day, officials from the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents visited the accident site, conducted an enquiry and prepared Ext.P3 site mahazar without examining any family members of the victims or eye-witnesses. Ext.P2 report of the Electrical Inspectorate dated 05.07.2021 was prepared, and it is submitted that vital aspects relating to the cause of the accident were deliberately concealed. After the death of their parents, petitioners 1 to 3 became orphans and were moved to a Balika Mandiram. Considering their financial condition and the urgent need for compensation, they approached the 1^st respondent by filing Exts. P5, P6 and P7 complaints.

5. It is submitted that, without properly considering the arguments of the petitioners and without following the procedure under Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 , the 1^st respondent dismissed the petitions and passed Ext. P8 order dated 20.02.2024. The specific contention of the petitioners is that the 1^st respondent relied solely on minor discrepancies in the deposition of PW1 during cross-examination regarding the source of the power leakage.

6. It is further submitted that the respondents never denied that the parents of the petitioners were electrocuted due to a supply wire that had not been properly maintained. The contradictions in the statements of the respondents, police officials, site mahazar, Electrical Inspector’s report, and other records, which were specifically highlighted before the 1st respondent, were not considered while issuing Ext. P8. It is contended that the responsibility to supply electrical energy is conferred on the respondent Board, and if such energy causes injury or death, the primary liability to compensat