The court emphasized the application of strict liability in electrocution cases, shifting the burden of proof from fault to inherent risk.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.P. No.77 of 2023 dated 28.11.2024, dismissing the claim preferred by the petitioner claiming compensation on account of the death of her son due to electrocution. The Permanent Lok Adalat found that under Section 22A (b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act , it has jurisdiction only to decide the disputes relating to public utility services and not where the claim of compensation with respect to any service rendered by the Government.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the very same forum considered the same issue in O.P. Nos. 38 of 2022, 39 of 2022, and 40 of 2022, dated 20.02.2024, adjudicating a claim on merits, therefore, the reasoning given by the Adalat cannot be sustained.

3. The petitioner relies on Rule 4(3) of the Supply Code, 2014 , which reads as follows:

“4. Duty to develop, maintain and extend the distribution system.-

(3) The licensee shall ensure that all electricity supply lines and equipment that are belonging to the licensee or under its control in the premises of the consumer, are in a safe condition and are fit in all respects for supplying energy and further the licensee shall take adequate precaution to avoid danger that may arise in such premises from such supply lines and equipment.”

4. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is vitiated for failure to consider the statutory obligation extracted above, as well as the settled principles governing strict liability in cases of electrocution. In M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and Others , ((2002) 2 SCC 162), following the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher , ((1868) LR (3) 330), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where an authority undertakes a hazardous activity such as transmission of electrical energy, liability to compensate arises irrespective of proof of negligence, the foundation being the inherent and foreseeable risk in such activity. The said principle was reiterated in Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., and Another v. Heirs of Chandrikaben Harpalsinh and Others (2017 (5) KHC 5296), wherein it was held that once strict liability is attracted, the question whether reasonable care was taken becomes immaterial. This Court in Varghese and Another v. Kerala State Electricity Board , Thiruvananthapuram (2013 (1) KHC 816) , has also recognised that in matters involving electricity supply, the enquiry shifts from fault to risk.

5. Taking note of the above statutory obligation and its relevance to the claim for compensation, as well as the settled principles governing strict liability in cases of electrocution, I deem it appropriate to direct the Permanent Lok Adalat, in the first instance, to examine the jurisdictional issue in the light of the aforesaid statutory provision, the binding principles relating to strict liability, and other relevant provisions, and render a reasoned decision in accordance with law.

6. In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside, and the Permanent Lok Adalat is directed to rehear O.P. No. 77 of 2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that all the contentions of the parties are left open. The Adalat will pass fresh orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-