[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Dusmanta Samal vs State Of Orissa And Others . Opp. Parties on 16 April, 2025
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14548 of 2016
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
Dusmanta Samal . Petitioner
Mr. S.K.Dwibedy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa and others . Opp. Parties
Mr. S.C.Dash, A.G.A.
Mr. Bibhudhendra Dash, Advocate for
O.P. No.3
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
_____________________________________________________
Date of hearing : 07.03.2025 | Date of Judgment : 16.04.2025
_____________________________________________________
A.K. Mohapatra, J. :
1. The hapless father who lost his son due to electrocution,
has approached this court by invoking the writ jurisdiction under
Article- 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner has stated
that, it was the negligence and inaction of the opposite parties in
taking proper care of the electric pole meant for public use, that
has made him and his entire family go through this immeasurable
agony and sorrow. The grieving family which has lost a young
Page 1 of 28
member has alleged violation of fundamental right as guaranteed
under Article- 21 of the Constitution of India and have also
prayed for adequate compensation from the opposite parties for
loss of life, as would be deemed appropriate by this court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Short facts involved herein, as pleaded by the Petitioner,
is that the petitioner‟s 17-year-old son, Sidhanta Samal, was a +2
Science student at Janata College, Satamaeithi, Dhenkanal. On
February 16, 2016, around 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM, on his way to the
nearby shop, he accidentally came in contact with a charged
electric pole. The passers- by attempted to rescue him using sticks
and took him to Khajuria Kata CHC for treatment, but he was
later declared dead at Hindol SDH. A U.D. Case was registered,
and the inquest report as well as the post-mortem confirmed
electrocution as the cause of death. Subsequently, on 8.01.15, an
FIR was filed by the uncle of the deceased, against the Junior
Engineer and S.D.O. of ENZEN Company under Sections 285,
304A, and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. After a thorough
investigation by the I.O., chargesheet was submitted before the
learned SDJM, Hindol. The Petitioner has now approached this
court, seeking adequate compensation for the tragic and untimely
loss of life of his son due to electrocution.
Page 2 of 28
SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently argued
that, it is the statutory duty of the opposite parties to maintain all
electrical apparatus including electric poles used for the purpose
of distribution of electricity, in such a way that, it doesn‟t lead to
loss of life or limb or cause any damage. However, in this case,
the opposite parties have acted negligently and carelessly, which
has led to the death of the Petitioner‟s son by coming in contact
with a charged electric pole. Therefore, he stated that, though the
loss of life of the son of the petitioner cannot be compensated or
undone, however, the Petitioner can avail some respite in the form
of monetary compensation, for which the Petitioner has
approached this court.
SUBMISSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other
hand, by referring to the counter affidavit, at the outset, denied
any allegation of negligence and inaction on their behalf. Both the
counsels appearing for the opposite parties made an attempt to
convince this court by referring to documents that, the deceased
had interfered with the installations in the electric pole to repair
the domestic connection which was disconnected due to rain and
wind. He took such a step, without any information to the
Page 3 of 28
Opposite party or its agent. While doing this, he came in contact
with the live service wire and died due to electrical shock. To
support this claim he placed reliance on the post mortem report,
and pointed out that, injuries other than burn injuries were found
on the body of the deceased. Therefore, he argued that the death
of the deceased was caused due to his own fault and not due to
negligence or inaction of the Opposite Parties.
5. He further stated that the Petitioner and the Opposite
Parties are putting forth different versions for the circumstances
that lead to the death of the Petitioner‟s son. In such factual
background, it was further contended that, the case involves
disputed facts, therefore, the court doesn‟t have jurisdiction to
entertain this petition under Article- 226 of the Constitution of
India. He supported this contention by placing reliance on
decisions such as SDO, GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and
Others v. Timudu Oram, (2005) 6 SCC 156, Ranjita Palai &
Another v. State of Odisha & Others, W.P. (C) No. 14065 of
2005 decided in 07.09.2017; Abhimanyu Muduli & Others v.
CESU, W.P. (C) 4654 of 2004 decided on 10.11.2006; Minati
Panigrahi v. CESU and others, W.A. No. 111/2007 and Suna
Dei v. State of Orissa and others, W.P. (C) No. 2784 of 2015
decided on 23.08.2022. It is his case that, civil court is the
Page 4 of 28
appropriate forum to approach, as evidences need to be adduced
to prove the facts due to which the electrocution occurred.
REPLY BY PETITIONER
6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, strenuously
opposed the stance taken by the opposite parties. He argued that,
the opposite parties have failed to produce any material on record
to support their contention with regard to the deceased‟s own fault
in happening of his death. Therefore, he claims that in absence of
any material on record, the claim becomes unsustainable. He
further stated that, the contention of the opposite parties that as it
involves disputed facts, the writ petition is not maintainable, is
also unsustainable. On the question of maintainability of the writ
petition, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court
in Chairman, GRIDCO and others v. Sukamani Das and
another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3412, and some decisions of
this Court in the cases of Executive Engineer CESU Ltd. Cuttack
Electrical Division v. Hema Sethy reported in 2011 (II) OLR
708; Rama Santa & others v. Chairman cum M.D. GRIDCO
Orissa and others reported in 2014 (II) ILR CUT 328;
Bhagaban Rout & Anr. v. Executive Engineer, CESCO, Salipur
reported in 2023 (I) OLR- 188; CEO, CESU, Bhubaneswar and
Another v. Anjana Prusty reported in 2017 (II) OLR- 112;
Page 5 of 28
Bharat Nath and others v. CESCO, represented by the Chief
Executive Officer, IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar reported in 2007
(Supp-1) OLR-315.
7. Referring to the above noted judgments, he finally stated
that in all those cases, court has allowed the compensation in the
favor of claimants on the undisputed fact of death due to
electrocution when materials on record like that police papers and
post mortem report supported the fact that the death of the
deceased is due to electrocution. Therefore, he pleads that on
basis of investigation done so far by the I.O. and the post mortem
report under Annexure-1 to the writ petition; the inquest report
under Annexure- 2 to the writ petition; final form/ chargesheet
submitted by the I.O Balimi P.S.; and the cognizance order of
SDM Hindol dated 07.09.2015 against the Opposite Parties, the
fact of electrocution death prima facie stand proved and thus the
writ petition is maintainable and compensation can very well be
awarded in favor of the Petitioner by this court. This is more so,
keeping in view the principle envisaged in Article- 21 of the
Constitution of India with regard to protection of life and liberty
of every citizen of this nation.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
Page 6 of 28
8. Heard counsels for the respective parties, evaluated the
documents submitted and perused the precedents cited.
9. For being compensated monetarily, the Petitioner is
required to prima facie establish that due to the negligence of the
opposite party- electricity distribution company and its agents, be
it intentional or unintentional, loss, harm or injury has been
caused to one party by the other and ultimately such negligence
gives rise to a civil liability under “law of tort”. The terminology
“injury” or “harm” under the law of tort has been given a very
wide interpretation by various judicial pronouncements. Having
said that, this court is required to analyze the factual background
of the case as well as its power to award compensation, before
coming to the definite conclusion with regard to the act of
negligence and consequential civil liability under the law of tort.
UNDISPUTED FACTS PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT
10. In order to address the rival contention made by the
opposite parties, that when the case involves disputed facts,
thewrit petition is not maintainable, the court finds it necessary to
enumerate the observation made in few cases cited by the
Petitioner.
In Bhagaban Rout & Anr. v. Executive Engineer,
CESCO, Salipur reported in 2023 (I) OLR- 188; the court held
Page 7 of 28
that the writ petition is maintainable and awarded compensation
in favor of the Petitioner for the death of his son due to
electrocution, on basis of undisputed fact of death due to
electrocution proven by the postmortem report, inquest report and
charge sheet. The court in the aforesaid case observed that,
“5. Considering the rival contentions of the
Parties, this Court finds, undisputedly there is
death of the son of the parents appearing as
the Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 on 13.08.2006. It is
clear from the inquest report as well as the
post mortem report, the death of the deceased
caused due to electrocution, final form also
supports the case of the Petitioners no doubt
the case could not be further investigated for
there is no ascertainment of involvement of any
person however all the documents such as
inquest report, post mortem report as well as
the final form are all in one direction
undisputedly suggesting there is death of the
deceased on account of electrocution coming
in contact of line wire undisputedly belonging
to the CESCO. There should not be also any
dispute that the wire or the poll came in
contact with the body of the deceased. It is at
this stage coming to consider the stand of the
department, the Opposite Parties, this Court
finds, the Opposite Parties contest herein
simply on the basis of disclosures vide
document at Annexure-A which reads as
follows:-
xxxx
6. Coming to the argument of counsel for the
department questioning the maintainability of
Page 8 of 28
the Petition for there involvement of disputed
question of fact, this Court first of all finds, the
F.I.R, inquest report, post mortem report and
final form all supports the case of the
Petitioner so far their claim on the death of
their son on electrocution, whereas the
department even though attempted to lodge an
FIR on allegation of attempt for stealing
energy against the deceased there is neither
any following up action for undertaking a legal
exercise involving their allegation involves
Annexure-A nor there is even any internal
report produced either in counter or additional
affidavit bringing in some material to at least
making out a case involving a theft attempt.
This Court here finds, the case of the
Petitioner rather gets support of a decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd.
(GRIDCO) and others vrs. Sukamani Das and
another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3412. This
Court here also finds support of a decision of
this Court on the entertainability of Writ
Petition through judgment of this Court in the
case of Executive Engineer, Central Electricity
Supply Utility Ltd., Cuttack Electrical
Division, Jobra, Cuttack vrs. Hema Sethy
reported in 2011 (II) OLR- 708.
Through AIR 2001 SC 485 vide paragraph-12
therein, the Hon’ble Apex Court came to hold
as follows:-
12. Even if there is no negligence on the part of
the driver or owner of the motor vehicle, but
accident happens while the vehicle was in use,
should not the owner be made liable for
damages to the person who suffered on
Page 9 of 28
account of such accident? This question
depends upon how far the Rule in Rylands v.
Fletcher (1861-73 All ER (Reprint)1) (supra)
can apply in motor accident cases. The said
Rule is summarized by Blackburn J. thus:
The true rule of law is that the person who, for
his own purposes, brings on his land, and
collects and keeps there anything likely to do
mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril,
and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie
answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequence of its escape. He can
excuse himself by showing that the escape was
owing to the plaintiff’s default, or, perhaps, or
the act of God; but, as nothing of this sort
exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what
excuse would be sufficient.”
This decision also supports the case of the
Petitioner here.
7. At this stage taking into consideration the
decision taken support by the opponent, this
Court finds the claim of the Petitioner
though based on a reporting in the inquest
report as well as F.I.R. and further final form
observations involving the F.I.R. at the
instance of the parties in loss but however
there is no material establishing the case
contrary to the existence in all these records.
Further in spite of involvement of such serious
issue, department failed in undertaking the
minimum an enquiry at least coming to a
finding by its own people that there is in fact,
an attempt for stealing energy by cutting AB
cable.
Page 10 of 28
8. It is in the above background, this Court
finds, there is no disputed fact involved herein.
In the circumstance this Court finds, the
Petitioners for the undisputed loss of their son
at the age of twenty four years observes, there
is great loss to the parents not only on account
of death of their son but there is also loss of
mental agony as well as love and affection and
Petitioners deserved appropriate
compensation.”
11. Similarly, in CEO, CESU, Bhubaneswar and Another v.
Anjana Prusty reported in 2017 (II) OLR- 112, the division
bench of this court approved the decision of the single judge
bench wherein compensation was awarded to the petitioner in
case of death due to electrocution, with the following observation-
“3. Learned Single Judge, taking into
consideration the rival contentions of the
parties and case laws reported in 2015 (I) OLR
637 (T. Bimala Vs. Cuttack Municipal
Corporation, Cuttack and others): AIR 2005
MP 2 (Ramesh Singh Pawar Vs. Madhya
Pradesh Electricity Board and others): AIR
2002 SC 551 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail
Kumar and others), and 1968 Law Reports (3)
HL 330 (Ryland Vs. Fletcher) held that the
opposite parties cannot shirk from their
responsibility on trivial grounds. For the
lackadaisical attitude exhibited by the opposite
parties, a valuable life was lost. Keeping in
view the age and avocation of the deceased,
learned Single Judge directed the appellants
(opposite parties in the writ petition) to payPage 11 of 28
interim compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- within
two months, and further permitted the
Petitioner to work out her remedies in the
common law forum for higher compensation.
xxx
8. In view of the discussions made above, more
particularly applying the doctrine of „strict
liability‟, we do not find any infirmity in the
impugned judgement. Thus, the writ appeal
being devoid of merit, is accordingly
dismissed.”
12. Similar observation was made by this court in the case of
Bharat Nath and others v. CESCO, represented by the Chief
Executive Officer, IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar reported in 2007
(Supp-1) OLR-315,
“4. In the light of the rival contentions, it is
clear that late Urmila Nath died due to
electrocution coming in contact with bare
conductor (live line) which was lying on the
agricultural field in village Andhala which is
an undisputed fact. The death due to
electrocution being the undisputed fact, the
only question that remains to be decided in this
writ application is that whether the CESCO-
licensee can shift its responsibility or liability
by raising that unfortunate occurrence has
occurred due to theft of electric conductors by
the culprits who have left the (bare conductor)
live line at the site.
The opposite parties have stated that their
authorities have lodged F.I.R. in the local
Police Station. While the fact is admitted in the
Page 12 of 28
counter affidavit, if there is any negligence on
the part of the police authorities in not taking
any action on the F.I.R. lodged by the licensee,
it is open to the licensee to take appropriate
steps available to them in law to eliminate the
inaction of the police authorities. But, by
merely lodging an F.I.R. against the alleged
culprits, cannot in law absolve the licensee of
their responsibility to the general public to
maintain their transmission system in the
manner so as not to endanger the public safety.
5. There being no other disputed question of
facts in this case, following the ratio of the
decision of this Court in the case of Nirmala
Nayak and Ors. v. Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and
Anr. OJC No. 6339 of 1997, disposed of on
13.4.2005, we are of the view that the ends of
justice would be better served if a
compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ – (Rupees one
lakh fifty thousand) is awarded in favour of the
Petitioners and we order accordingly. The said
compensation shall be paid to the Petitioners
with simple interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of death of the deceased
till the date of actual payment. This Court
further directs the Opp. Party to make such
calculation and deposit the said amount either
in cash or by way of cheque with the Registrar
(Judl.) of the Court within a period of four
weeks from today. The Registrar (Judl.)
thereupon shall send notice to Petitioner No. 4.
The Petitioner No. 4 must produce some
material or evidence to show that he is the
husband of the deceased-Urmila Nath. After
being satisfied about the relationship between
the deceased and the Petitioners, the Registrar
Page 13 of 28
(Judl.) shall disburse the amount to Petitioner
No. 4 on proper identification.”
13. In addition to the above cases cited by the Petitioner, the
case of Bibekanada Dash and another v. C.E.O., NESCO
(Electrical), Balesore and others, W.P. (C) No. 18039 of 2008
decided on 10.08.2016, also involved similar factual background
and similar objection as the present case in hand, was put forth by
the opposite parties. However, the court decided the case in
favour of the Petitioner by granting compensation by making the
following observation-
“7. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra,
the case of the Petitioners may be examined.
Immediately after the occurrence, the matter
was reported to the Jajpur Police Station.
Thereafter Jajpur P.S.U.D.Case No.50/97 was
registered. After enquiry, the police submitted
the report stating that the cause of death was
due to electric shock. The postmortem report
reveals that the deceased was 22 years and the
cause of death was due to electric shock. In
view of the clinching material on record, the
conclusion is irresistible that the son of the
Petitioners died due to electrocution. As held
above, a person undertaking an activity
involving hazardous or risky exposure to
human life is liable under law of torts to
compensate for the injury suffered by any other
person, irrespective of any negligence or
carelessness on the part of the managers of
such undertakings. The basis of such liability is
the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature
Page 14 of 28
of such activity. Authorities manning such
dangerous commodities have extra duty to
chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
The opposite parties have taken an evasive
plea to exonerate from liability. The opposite
parties cannot shirk their responsibility on
trivial grounds. For the lackadaisical attitude
exhibited by the opposite parties, a valuable
life was lost. The deceased was a young man of
22 years at the time of accident. He was the
only earning member of the family. Keeping in
view the age of the deceased, this Court directs
the opposite parties to pay interim
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Two lakhs) to
the Petitioners within two months leaving the
Petitioners to work out their remedies in the
common law forum for higher compensation.”
14. Therefore, in the light of above cited precedents and the
factual matrix as admitted, the undisputed facts before this court
are that, the Opposite Parties no. 4- 6 i.e. Enzen Global Solutions
Pvt. Ltd, was responsible for maintenance of the LT supply Line
in the jurisdiction where the electrocution occurred. The Post
Mortem under report dated 16.02.2014 under Annexure- 1 to the
writ petition, unambiguously discloses the cause of death to be
ante- mortem electrocution. The inquest report under Annexure- 2
to the writ petition, prepared on the day of the death, also reveal
that the cause of death was electric shock and there is no
suspicion of any foul play. The chargesheet / final report C.S. No.
42 dated 28.06.2015 submitted by investigating officer of Balimi
Page 15 of 28
P.S., Dhenkanal, pursuant to Balimi PS Case no.- 06 of 2015,
states that a prima facie evidence is made out against Mr. Anshu
Kumar, J.E.- cum- Junior Manager, Enzen Global Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. and Mr. Amiya Prasad Mallik, EDO- cum- Deputy Manager,
Enzen Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd, for the commission of offence
under Section- 285/304A/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1840.
Pursuant to this, SDJM Hindol by its order dated 07.09.2015, has
found that a prima facie case under Section- 285/304A/34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1840, is made out against the accused persons
and cognizance has been taken and summons of appearance has
also been issued against the accused.
APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE STRICT LIABILTIY
15. The counsels for the opposite parties have strenuously
argued that, they did not act negligently or carelessly and were
not responsible for the death caused to the Petitioner‟s son. In this
context and upon perusal of the case, the court finds it profitable
to discuss the principle of strict liability under the “law of tort”.
There are many activities which are so hazardous that they
constitute constant danger to person and property of other. The
rule of strict liability was propounded by the English Common
Law courts in the celebrated case of Ryland v. Fletcher, reported
Page 16 of 28
in 1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330, where Justice Blackburn had
observed thus:
“The rule of law is that the person who, for his
own purpose, brings on his land and collects
and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if
it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he
does so he is prima facie answerable for all the
damage which is the natural consequence of its
escape.”
16. The doctrine of strict liability is based on the fundamental
fact that the undertakers of the hazardous activities have to
compensate for the damages caused, irrespective of any
carelessness on their part. The basis of liability is the foreseeable
risk inherent in the very nature of the activities. In this aspect, the
principle of strict liability resembles negligence which is also
based on foreseeable harm. But the difference is that, the concept
of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be
avoided by taking reasonable precaution and so if the defendant
did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm, he cannot
be held liable. Such a consideration is not relevant in cases of
strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of
whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking
precautions. The rationale behind strict liability is that the
activities coming within its fold are those entailing extraordinary
Page 17 of 28
risk to others, either in the seriousness or the frequency of the
harm threatened.
17. There are seven exceptions formulated through judicial
pronoucements to the said doctrine such as Act of God, act of
stranger, plaintiff‟s own fault, etc. The rule of strict liability has
been approved and adopted in various decisions of the Supreme
Court of India such as Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India,
reported in AIR 1990 SC 1480 and Gujarat Road Transport
Corpn. V. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, reported in AIR 1987 SC
1690. Similarly, Supreme Court has extended the principle of
strict liability on the electricity companies engaged in supply and
distribution of electricity and has granted compensation to the
victim of electrocution. In the case of M.P. Electricity Board v.
Shail Kumari and others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162, by
applying the aforesaid principle, Apex Court awarded
compensation to the widow and dependants of the deceased, who
died due to electrocution by coming in contact with a snapped
live electric wire lying on the road. The court made the following
observation thus,
“7. It is an admitted fact that the
responsibility to supply electric energy in the
particular locality was statutorily conferred on
the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes
Page 18 of 28
injury or death of a human being, who gets
unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability
to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier
of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of
electricity transmitted through the wires is
potentially of dangerous dimension the
managers of its supply have the added duty to
take all safety measures to prevent escape of
such energy or to see that the wire snapped
would not remain live on the road as users of
such road would be under peril. It is no defence
on the part of the management of the Board that
somebody committed mischief by siphoning such
energy to his private property and that the
electrocution was from such diverted line. It is
the lookout of the managers of the supply system
to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary
devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped
and fell on the public road the electric current
thereon should automatically have been
disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous
commodities have extra duty to chalk out
measures to prevent such mishaps.
8. Even assuming that all such measures
have been adopted, a person undertaking an
activity involving hazardous or risky exposure
to human life, is liable under law of torts to
compensate for the injury suffered by any other
person, irrespective of any negligence or
carelessness on the part of the managers of such
undertakings. The basis of such liability is the
foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of
such activity. The liability cast on such person is
known, in law, as “strict liability”. It differs
from the liability which arises on account of the
negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of
negligence comprehends that the foreseeable
harm could be avoided by taking reasonable
Page 19 of 28
precautions. If the defendant did all that which
could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot
be held liable when the action is based on any
negligence attributed. But such consideration is
not relevant in cases of strict liability where the
defendant is held liable irrespective of whether
he could have avoided the particular harm by
taking precautions.”
Therefore, with the advent of the doctrine of strict liability and
acceptance thereof as a sound legal principle, the electricity
distribution companies cannot escape their liability by merely
stating that they weren‟t negligent in maintaining the apparatuses
used for supply and distribution of electricity.
COURT’S POWER TO AWARD COMPENSATION
18. With regard to the power of court to award compensation
in the cases of infringement of fundamental rights of the citizens,
it is necessary to discuss that, one of the most remarkable features
of the Constitution is that it provides an enforceable guarantee of
the protection of fundamental rights incorporated in Part III of the
Constitution. The jurisprudence on fundamental rights has
evolved tremendously during the life of the Constitution and the
constitutional courts have not looked away when the peculiar
needs of a case necessitated a deviation from the traditional
understanding of the principles. It would be apposite to take note
of the pertinent observations of the Supreme Court, made way
Page 20 of 28
back in 1952 in State of Madras v. V.G. Row reported in AIR
1952 SC 196, wherein the court recognised itself as the sentinel
on the qui vive i.e. a watchful guardian of fundamental rights. If
any fundamental right, especially Right to life and personal
liberty under Article- 21 is infringed, court has inherent and
extraordinary power to see that justice is done.
19. At this juncture, court would like to reflect on the
observations made in few judicial pronouncements, which have
discussed the power of the constitutional courts to award
compensation, when there is infringement of fundamental rights.
In T. Bimala v. Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack
and others, reported in 2015(I) OLR-637, it was observed that,
“9. The language of Article 226 of the
Constitution does not admit of any limitation
on the powers of the High Court for the
exercise of jurisdiction thereunder. The power
conferred upon the High Courts under Article
226 of the Constitution is wide enough to reach
injustice wherever it is found. The apex Court
in catena of the decisions laid down certain
guidelines and self-imposed limitations have
been put there subject to which the High
Courts would exercise jurisdiction. Those
guidelines cannot be mandatory in all
circumstances. When a citizen approaches the
Page 21 of 28
High Court in writ petition that a wrong is
caused, the High Court will step into protect
him, whether that wrong was done by the State
or an instrumentality of the State. The High
Court cannot pull down the shutters.”
20. In M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, reported in (2001)
8 SCC 151, the Apex Court observed as under:
“Next is the issue of “maintainability of the writ
petition” before the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution. The appellants though
initially very strongly contended that while the
negligence aspect has been dealt with under
penal laws already, the claim for compensation
cannot but be left to be adjudicated by the civil
laws and thus the Civil Court‟s jurisdiction
ought to have been invoked rather than by way
of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This plea of non- maintainability
of the writ petition though advanced at the
initial stage of the submissions but subsequently
the same was not pressed and as such we need
not detain ourselves on that score, excepting
however recording that the law Courts exist for
the society and they have an obligation to meet
the social aspirations of citizens since law
Courts must also respond to the needs of the
people. In this context, reference may be made
to two decisions of this Court: the first in line isPage 22 of 28
the decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of
Orissa, (AIR 1993 SC 1960) wherein this Court
relying upon the decision in Rudal Sah (Rudal
Sah v. State of Bihar), (AIR 1983 SC 1086)
decried the illegality and impropriety in
awarding compensation in a proceeding in
which the Court‟s power under Articles 32 and
226 of the Constitution stands involved and thus
observed that it was a clear case for award of
compensation to the Petitioner for custodial
death of her son. It is undoubtedly true,
however, that in the present context, there is no
infringement of the State‟s obligation, unless of
course the State can also be termed to be joint
tortfeasor, but since the case of the parties
stands restricted and without imparting any
liability on the State, we do not deem it
expedient to deal with the issue any further
except noting the two decisions of this Court as
above and without expression of any opinion in
regard thereto.”
21. In Ramesh Singh Pawar v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity
Board and others, reported in AIR 2005 MP 2, Apex Court
observed that:
“Currently judicial attitude has taken a shift
from the old doctrine concept and the
traditional jurisprudential system – affection of
the people has been taken note of rather serious
Page 23 of 28
and the judicial concern thus stands on a
footing to provide expeditious relief to an
individual when needed rather than taking
recourse to the old conservative doctrine of the
Civil Court‟s obligation to award damages. As a
matter of fact the decision in D.K. Basu has not
only dealt with the issue in a manner apposite to
the social need of the “Country but the learned
Judge with his usual felicity of expression firmly
established the current trend of justice-oriented
approach”. Law Courts will lose their efficacy if
they cannot possibly respond to the need of the
society – technicalities their might be many but
the justice-oriented approach ought not to be
thwarted on the basis of such technicality since
technicality cannot and ought not to outweigh
the course of justice.”
In light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and
progression of the constitutional law for protection of
constitutional rights and payment of compensation for damage
caused to the citizens, the constitutional courts can comfortably
assume the power to award compensation, in a scenario when the
undisputed facts reveal that the death of a person was due to
electrocution and such fact is established by prima facie evidence,
otherwise failure to do so would ultimately amount to
Page 24 of 28
infringement of fundamental Right to Life guaranteed under
Article- 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
OBSERVATION OF THIS COURT
22. It is the finding of this court that, the fact that death of the
deceased was caused due to electrocution, is well established by
the charge sheet, post mortem report and inquest report which are
part of the investigation carried by the I.O. in this case. In
addition to this, the final report and the cognizance order, indicate
towards existence of a prima facie case and the culpability of the
Opposite Parties. Moreover, with regard to the contention of the
Opposite Parties that the post mortem supports their stance, this
Court finds that such ground is hypothetical and based solely on
the claim of the Opposite Parties to exonerate themselves of any
liability.
23. Keeping in view the precedents cited above, the materials
placed on record and the observation made, the court is of the
considered view that, the prayer made by the Petitioner is
sustainable. The opposite parties are engaged in a hazardous
activity, and they will be strictly liable for the loss of life that had
occurred due to their undertaken activity. The judiciary as the
guardian of the Constitution and the protector of fundamental
Page 25 of 28
rights, has never shied away from trying to make good of what is
lost in monetary terms. It is universal truth that loss of human life
can never be compensated by bringing back a dead young man to
life, however, the bereaved family can be compensated in
monetary terms for the loss of income sustained by such family
due to untimely death of a young member of the family.
24. On a close scrutiny of the factual background of the
petitioner‟s case, it is observed that after the mishap occurred, the
matter was reported to the local police. An investigation was
conducted by registering a P.S. Case. In course of investigation,
the inquest report prepared, post mortem done, statement of
witnesses recorded and finally charge sheet was filed implicating
the accused person‟s names in the charge sheet for commission of
a cognizable case. The matter did not stop there. In the
meanwhile, cognizance has also been taken by the jurisdictional
magistrate. All the aforesaid materials clearly establishes
electrocution. The accused persons were now required to face trial
to establish the fact that the deceased died not due to their
negligence and to avoid their conviction under the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. On the contrary, nothing has been brought on record
to establish that the death was not due to electrocution. In the
aforesaid factual backdrop, this court has no hesitation to hold
Page 26 of 28
that the death was due to electrocution. Moreover, the doctrine of
strict liability under the law of tort could very well be applied to
the facts of the present case as the Opposite Parties also were
carrying on activities which were hazardous, harmful and risky to
human life. Therefore, they are liable to compensate the petitioner
for untimely death of his young son.
CONCLUSION
25. Therefore, in the light of the above observation, this court
holds that the Opposite Parties No. 4-6, who is in- charge of
upkeep, maintenance, etc. of the electric lines, is squarely liable to
pay an interim compensation. So far as the quantum of the
compensation is concerned, the „OERC (Compensation to
Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2020‟, which came
into force on 30.05.2020, has been brought to the notice of this
court. As per regulation 5 of the aforesaid regulations, the
quantum of compensation payable in the event of a loss of human
life has been fixed to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four
Lakhs) per person. As such, keeping in view the aforesaid
regulation, this Court deems it proper to direct the Opposite Party
No.3 to pay an interim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees
Four lakhs) to the Petitioner within a period of two months from
the date of this judgement, with a right to recover the same from
Page 27 of 28
Opposite Party No. 4 to 6. Further, liberty is granted to the
Petitioner to pursue other suitable remedies in the common law
forum for higher compensation, if so advised.
26. Writ petition stands disposed of in favour of the
Petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 16th of April, 2025/ Rubi/J.S.
Signature Not Verified Page 28 of 28
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RUBI BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 16-Apr-2025 18:24:45
[ad_2]
Source link