Electricity authorities liable for death from snapped wire due to negligent maintenance, despite contributory factors.

ORDER

The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the electrocution death of his deceased wife Roja on 31.12.2020 based on the petitioner’s representation dated

14.07.2022 within the stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that electric wire was snapped and fell on petitioner’s gate and thereby the petitioner’s wife had touched the gate and due to electrocution she died on the spot. The brother-in- law of the deceased had touched the gate in which the snapped wire was lying and got electrocuted and passed away. The petitioner’s wife made an attempt to rescue her brother-in-law, but, he already got electrocuted. Consequently the electricity passed on the petitioner’s wife and she also died. According to the petitioner, the main reason for electrocution was due to snapping of wire and falling on the gate and it is purely due to the negligence on the part of the respondents. Since the respondents have maintained the wire in a very poor state of affairs, this accident has occurred. He would further submit that the petitioner’s wife was 23 years at the time of accident and she left behind her two years old daughter along with the husband, who made a representation for compensation.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the cause of electrocution is not due to the snapped electricity wire falling on the gate, but it was due to the piling of GI wires on the gate, thereby the snapped wire formed a circuit and electrified the gate, which resulted in the accident. If the GI wires were not stacked on the gate, the gate would not have been electrified. Therefore, he would submit that the respondents are no way responsible for the accident.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

5. Whether the petitioner stacking the gate with GI wire was the cause for the snapped wire to electrify the gate is not an issue before this Court. The issue is whether the negligence on the part of the respondents, had ultimately resulted in snapping of the electricity wire and fell down on the gate. The maintenance of the electricity wire is the responsibility of the respondents. When the wire was in a poor state of affair, it is for the respondents to inspect and maintain the same and change it periodically. Due to negligence on the part of the respondents they failed to maintain the electricity wire in a proper way by conducting periodical inspection, which ultimately resulted in snapping of the wire and falling down on the gate. Due to which electricity passed on the gate.

The brother-in-law of the deceased touched the gate and got electrocuted and the petitioner’s wife made an attempt to rescue him and she also got electrocuted. The cause for the electricity shock was not known to the deceased petitioner’s wife, that is the reason why she made an attempt to rescue her brother-in-law.

6. From the above facts, this Court arrives at a conclusion that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. On the other hand, the negligence was purely on the part of the respondents, as they failed to maintain the electricity wire, which ultimately had resulted in the said accident. Therefore, the respondents are responsible to pay the compensation.

7. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that for electrocution death cases, the respondents would pay a fixed amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

8. The said fixed comp