Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 5209
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Malasri Nandi, President, Chandan Das, Judicial Member, Pratim Kumar Bora, Judicial Member, Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Judicial Member
Upper Assam Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Shanti Kachari – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2014
Important Points
Subject
Consumer Protection - Electricity Negligence
Act Referred
Electricity Act, 2003: S.68
Indian Electricity Rules, 1956: R.79, R.80
Headnote
Facts of the case:
A young man died due to electrocution after coming into contact with a loosely fitted 33 KV high-tension wire passing over a water tank inside a tea estate premises. The electrical department contended that the line existed prior to the construction of the water tank and that they were not negligent. The District Commission awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of life.
Findings of Court:
The State Commission concurred that the electricity supplier failed to maintain mandatory safety clearances as per the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The fact that the line was relocated after the accident indicated prior negligence and failure to adopt precautionary measures.
Issues: Whether the appellants were negligent in maintaining the high-voltage transmission lines and whether the compensation awarded for the death of the complainant's son was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: Electricity suppliers have an absolute duty to maintain high-voltage wires in safe conditions. Failure to adhere to the mandatory horizontal and vertical clearances prescribed under the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, constitutes per se negligence. The absence of action under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to mitigate hazards confirms the liability for damages caused by electrocution.
Result: Appeal dismissed; the judgment and order of the District Commission upheld.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.Banikya
For the Respondents: Mr. P.P.Dutta, Mr. A.Biswas
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background surrounding the electrocution incident claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments concerning safety standards, limitation periods, and specific statutory duties of utility companies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. final court holding on liability and duty of care regarding high-voltage infrastructure maintenance. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
BY MR. TAPAS KUMAR GHOSH,
Heard Mr. S.Banikya, learned counsel appeared for Appellants, Mr. P.P.Dutta for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. A.Biswas for Respondent No.2.
1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dtd 25-04-2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Golaghat, Assam in CC No.12 of 2009.
2. The case of the Respondent No. 1/complainant is that her son, Bikram Kachari on 07-04-2005 was electrocuted when he climbed on the water tank in the premises of his employer, Numaligarh Tea Estate and came into contact with a live 33 KV wire which passed over the water tank loosely and as a result, he sustained serious electric burn injuries and died on the spot. The electric line ought to have erected by the side of the water tank. After the accident, the electricity line has been deviated and erected through the side of the water tank. According to the Respondent No. 1/complainant, the accident could have been averted if shifting of the said electric line was done earlier which is done after the accident. The matter of accident reported to the Bokakhat Police. Postmortem examination of deceased was done at K.K.Civil Hospital, Golaghat. After the premature death of the son of the respondent/complainant, the respondent/complainant lodged claim with the Senior Manager, Golaghat Electrical Division, UAEDCL, Golaghat but to no avail. The respondent/complainant served Registered Lawyer’s Notice on 02-01-2009 but there was no response.
On 04-03-2009, the Respondent No. 1/complainant allegedly served another Registered Lawyer’s notice upon the Deputy Manager, UAEDCL, Kamargaon Electrical Sub-Division and on receipt of the same, it was replied that they are no liable at all and the said electricity line was constructed by the department at least 20 years ago and the water tank was constructed much later by Numaligarh Tea Estate. The Respondent No. 1/complainant also stated in the complaint that the deceased Bikram Kachari was used to earn Rs 4000/- per month for the services rendered by him in Tea Garden of Numaligarh Tea Estate and at the time of his death, the son of the respondent/complainant was 21 years of age. Accordingly Respondent No. 1/complainant demanded compensation amounting Rs 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakh) only from all the Appellants/opposite parties.
3. The Appellants/respondents refused to entertain the claim and replied after receiving Registered Lawyers Notice that complainant is not liable for any claim from the opposite parties. As the complainant did not receive the claim, the complainant filed the complaint petition in District Commission for claiming compensation from Appellants/opposite parties 1 to 4. As per the complainant, where the electric energy transmitted by the opposite parties causes injury to or death of a human being who gets unknowingly trapped into it,
4. Primary responsibility to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of electric energy. As per the complainant/ Respondent No. 1, the accident occurred due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants/opposite parties, because the electric live wire of 33000 KV H.T. was loosely and negligently fitted over the water tank. As a result, the deceased came into contact with the electric wire and died on the spot. As per the complainant, by rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the Appellants/respondents has caused deficiency in service and hence complainant claimed an amount of Rs 10,00,000/- along with
