AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Court proceedings have been conducted through online court proceeding services.
The subject-matter in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the death of one Rajen Ronghang, stated to have
occurred in an accident due to electrocution, and a direction to the respondent APDCL authorities has been sought for to grant adequate
compensation for such death.
The relevant background facts, in brief, leading to the institution of the writ petition, have been projected as follows :
3.1. The petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 are the father and the mother respectively of said Rajen Ronghang. The family of the petitioners
resides in Village - Putsari, Post Office â€" Putsari, Police Station â€" Baithalangso, District â€" Karbi Anglong. It has been stated that on 31.05.2015,
their son, Rajen Ronghang had gone to Langaldang and there he met one Line Man belonging to Donkamokam Electrical Sub-Division, Kanch
Electrical Circle of the respondent APDCL. The said Line Man called Rajen Ronghang near an electric pole to assist him in repairing electrical
works. The said Line Man was trying to restore electric supply to the said village at that point of time. While assisting the said Line Man Rajen
Ronghang received electric shock by coming in contact with a live electric wire of high voltage and he was trapped. On hearing his screams, the
villagers came to the spot and tried to disengage him from the electric pole with the help of dry bamboo sticks. The victim suffered electric burns. He
was, thereafter, taken to the Ouguri Dispensary as his left knee and right hand received severe burn injuries. Rajen Ronghang was thereafter, taken to
the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH). At the GMCH, he was given emergency treatment. Finding his condition serious, he was admitted
and kept as an indoor patient in the Burn unit of the GMCH on and from 31.05.2015.
3.2. It is the case of the petitioners that since his admission in the GMCH, his treatment continued till 01.07.2015. During his treatment, the left hand
of Rajen Ronghang had to be amputated due to severe burn injury. Despite such amputation of his left hand, the doctors at the GMCH could not save
his life. It was on 01.07.2015 i.e. after 31 days from the date of the incident, Rajen Ronghang breathed his last at the GMCH.
3.3. With regard to the death of Late Rajen Ronghang, a General Diary (G.D.) Entry no. 21 was registered at Bhangagarh Police Station on
02.07.2015. Pursuant to the said G.D. Entry no. 21, the post-mortem examination on the dead body was conducted at the GMCH on 02.07.2015. As
per the post-mortem examination report, there were severe burn injuries in the various parts of the body. It was opined that the death was due to
septicaemia as a result of the burn injuries sustained all over the body, as described therein, following ante-mortem electrocution. All burn injuries
were dermoepidermel in depth covering approx. 30% of the total body surface area. An application reporting the death was made and a death
certificate recording the death of Late Rajen Ronghang on 01.07.2015 was issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Ouguri Mini PHC, Karbi
Anglong vide Death Certificate dated 04.07.2015.
According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 25 years and was a daily wage earner earning about Rs. 9,000/- per month. The
petitioners have stated that their other son, Sapro Ronghang also died due to illness prior to the death of Rajen Ronghang. It has been contended that
they were dependent upon the deceased. It is the case of the petitioners that when they approached before the respondent APDCL authorities, no
compensation had been paid to them despite the fact that the death of the deceased was caused due to electrocution for faults attributable on their
part. As no response was received from the respondent APDCL authorities with regard to grant of compensation, the petitioners have approached
this Court by way of this writ petition seeking a direction to grant adequate compensation for the death of their son.
Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for respondent nos.
1-4 and Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Junior Government Advocate for respondent no. 5.
Mr. Borah by referring to the averments made in the writ petition, as mentioned above, has submitted that the electrical accident was caused due to
faults on the part of the respondent APDCL authorities and there was no negligence on the part of the victim. Referring to the Electrical Accident
Enquiry Report submitted by the respondent no. 5, it has been submitted by him that from the said Report, it is established that the death was due to
carrying out repairing works of DTR without proper planning and without undertaking due care and preventive measures. It was at the insistence of
the Line Man, the deceased had extended his assistance to him without knowing about the consequence he was likely to face. Mr. Borah has further
submitted that despite occurrence of the accident in the year 2015, the respondent authorities neglected to consider the matter in the right manner and
have not provided due compensation to the family of the victim. When the Report, submitted by a Senior Electrical Inspector jointly with a Electrical
Inspector, has clearly attributed the fault on the part of the respondent APDCL authorities indicating that the burn injuries sustained by the victim were
due to electrocution which ultimately resulted into his death on 01.07.2015 after fighting for his life since 31.05.2015, it was incumbent on the part of
the respondent APDCL authorities to provide due compensation forthwith to the family of the deceased.
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent APDCL authorities has, on the other hand, submitted that from the
Electrical Accident Enquiry Report, it is evident that the fault was also partly attributable to the deceased as without any instruction from the Line
Man, he had climbed an electric pole and tried to do the jumpering works of a 11 KV over head line himself. The case of the petitioners has, he
submits, to be examined in the context of the aforesaid fact situation.
Mr. Talukdar, learned Junior Government Advocate has submitted that after the accident was reported to the respondent no. 5, an enquiry was
caused through a Senior Electrical Inspector with the assistance of an Electrical Inspector, in terms of the provisions of Section 161, Electricity Act,
2003 and thereafter, an Electrical Accident Enquiry Report had been duly submitted. The said Report has been annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf
of the respondent no. 5.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record.
The respondent APDCL authorities has submitted its response through an affidavit-in-opposition filed on 07.04.2021 wherein it is averred that the
deceased climbed one 11 KV over head pole structure unauthorisedly. He neither informed nor took permission from the Line Man of the respondent
APDCL authorities to climb the pole. When the deceased climbed the pole, no person from the APDCL authorities was present at the site. It has
been averred that the accident on 31.05.2015 occurred solely due to an unauthorized act on the part of the victim and not because of any fault or
negligence on the part of the APDCL authorities. With the above projections, it has been contended that the responsibility for the burn injuries
sustained by the victim which ultimately resulted into his death, cannot be affixed on the respondent APDCL authorities. The respondent APDCL
authorities have not, however, denied about causing enquiry by the office of the Chief Electrical Inspector, Assam into the incident occurred on
31.05.2015.
Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has prescribed that if any accident occurs inter alia in connection with the generation, transmission,
distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results in
loss of human or animal life, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss caused by such accident to the Electrical Inspector.
The Electrical Inspector is to enquire as to the cause of the accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have occasioned by or in connection
with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity.
The respondent no. 5 who is authorised under Section 161, Electricity Act, 2003 to enquire into such an electrical accident and to submit a report,
conducted an enquiry in respect of the electrical accident that occurred at around 02-00 p.m. on 31.05.2015 in Village - Langerdang, Police Station -
Baithalangso in connection with three phase 11 KV over head transmission line. The enquiry was caused by a Senior Electrical Inspector with the
assistance of an Electrical Inspector, by making a field inspection and by meeting the residents residing near the place of the electrical accident.
Thereafter, an Electrical Accident Enquiry Report came to be submitted. The respondent no. 5 has filed an affidavit wherein a copy of the Electrical
Accident Enquiry Report submitted by the Senior Electrical Inspector and the Electrical Inspector, on 08.02.2019, has been annexed.
The Electrical Accident Enquiry Report has stated that site verification was done by the said two officials with the assistance of nearby residents
of the locality. As per the findings of spot verification and a report of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Donkamokam Electrical Sub-Division, APDCL, it
was reported that on 31.05.2015 one DTR of 25 KVA transformer at Putsari Hindu Gaon was out of order and the local people reported the matter to
the APDCL office at Umpenai Sub-Station. In response to the said complaint, one Line Man viz. Sri Morning Teron, an outsourced Sahayak under the
respondent APDCL, had gone to the village to check the DTR. There was a gang switch which was around 800 metres from the DTR location and in
between the DTR and the gang switch, there was a four pole structure at Langerdang from where 11 KV line to the DTR was tapped. Before
repairing the said DTR, the said gang switch was kept open and the jumper connection at four pole structure was also disconnected for safety
purpose. After completing the rectification/repairing works of the DTR, the Line Man had gone for cleaning his hands. In the meantime, the deceased
appeared to have climbed up the four pole structure and sustained injuries as some unknown person closed the gang switch in the meantime. As a
result, the deceased sustained electrical burn injuries. It has been reported that had the repairing works of DTR been performed by the designated
personnel with proper planning and prior understanding with clarity and had appropriate and safe preventive measures been taken by the outsourced
Sahayak working under the respondent APDCL before repairing the transformer works, the electrical accident would not have taken place. It is also
mentioned that from the fact and circumstances leading to the electrical accident, the electrical accident appeared to have taken place due to non-
compliance of Regulation 3 and Regulation 19(3) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations,
2010 on the part of the respondent APDCL authorities. It has been recommended that the provisions of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures
Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 should be strictly complied with by the owner of the supply line to ensure safety and such
work shall be performed with appropriate compliance and prior understanding and clarity. It has further been recommended that before going to the
work site all equipments and tools shall be inspected and checked for correct operation.
It has, thus, clearly emerged from the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report submitted in respect of the electrical accident dated 31.05.2015 that the
electrical accident which resulted in burn injuries of the victim leading ultimately to his death due to septicaemia, had occurred due to sudden closure
of the gang switch located at a far distance from the four pole structure by some unknown person. The findings of the Electrical Accident Enquiry
Report have not been assailed by the respondent APDCL authorities. The principle of strict liability has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in M.P. State Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 and as the learned counsel for the parties have not
disputed such position, no dilation is required in that regard.
From the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report, it is also evident that the electrical accident happened suddenly and the victim was in no position to
take adequate care and protection to avert the situation. From the causes of the accident, as reported in the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report, it has
clearly emerged that no fault can be attributed to the deceased whereas there was omission to follow statutory protective measures on the part of the
owner of the electrical supply. The provisions of Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010
were found to have been contravened by the supplier of the electricity i.e. the respondent APDCL. It is, thus, evident that the deceased in the case in
hand had met his death due to acts attributable on the part of the respondent APDCL authorities. Thus, in such situation, it is not open for the
respondent APDCL authorities in the face of their own inaction and omission, to deny grant of compensation to the family of the deceased.
The Board of Directors of the respondent APDCL by an Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013 had notified different quantum of compensation
payable to the next-of-kin of the victims in respect of fatal electrical accidents. In the said Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, a detailed
procedure was laid down in respect of disbursal of such compensation. In supersession of the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, another Office
Memorandum came to be issued on 25.09.2017 where a uniform rate of compensation was notified. Subsequently, the Assam Electricity Regulatory
Commission (AERC) has notified the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electric Accidents) Regulations, 2019 where a detailed procedure has
again been laid down as regards electrical accidents and quantum of compensation payable for loss of human life/animals, etc.
As per the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, the compensation payable in respect of a victim above 20 years of age and upto 55 years of
age was Rs. 1.50 lakh. The amount of compensation, as per the Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2017, was at a uniform rate of Rs. 2.50 lakh
irrespective of the age of the victim and the said uniform rate of compensation came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2017. It has been laid down therein that
the above amount of compensation shall be disbursed by the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Electrical Circle within 48 hours of the
accident, based on the preliminary satisfaction of the field officers that a prima facie fault of the APDCL was established. Duty was also cast on the
concerned officer in the APDCL to send notice and report of the electrical accident immediately to the Electrical Inspectorate, Government of Assam
strictly in terms of the mandatory provisions contained in the Electricity Act, 2003 and the AERC Regulations. As per the Office Memorandum dated
07.11.2019, the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission has notified the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations,
2019 providing for a detailed procedure as well as the quantum of compensation payable for loss of human life/animal and also injury to human, where
the accident is attributable to the fault/negligence of APDCL authorities.
This writ petition has been preferred in the year 2018. It is not the case of the respondent APDCL authorities that the electrical accident was not
within their knowledge. The findings recorded in the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report submitted in respect of the electrocution case in hand have
not been challenged in any manner by the respondent APDCL authorities till date nor have the findings made in the said Electrical Accident Enquiry
Report been traversed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent APDCL authorities in the instant case. From the facts that have emerged
from the above discussion in respect of the electrical accident, the respondent no. 5 had submitted his Electrical Accident Enquiry Report only on
08.02.2019 in respect of the fatal electrical accident that occurred on 31.05.2015. What took the respondent authorities such long period of time to
enquire into the electrical accident and thereafter, to submit the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report has not been explained in either of the affidavits of
the respondent authorities. The procedure prescribed in all the above Office Memoranda had/has mandated that it was/is incumbent on the part of the
respondent APDCL authorities to settle a claim of a fatal electrical accident within a prescribed period of time from the date of receipt of information
about the same on the basis of the documents/records indicated therein. From the discussions made above, it is clearly demonstrated that the
settlement of claim in respect of the fatal electrical accident in the case in hand has not been settled expeditiously as indicated in the Office
Memoranda (supra). While the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2017 had prescribed the period of settlement as 60 (sixty) days, the Office
Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 has prescribed a period of 120 (one hundred twenty) days as the period of settlement from the date of occurrence of
the event. Though the petitioners have claimed that they approached the respondent APDCL authorities they have failed to substantiate the same with
any material.
It is contended on behalf of the respondent APDCL authorities that as the fatal accident under reference had occurred in the year 2015, the
compensation prevailing at that time would only be payable to the victim. As there is inordinate and inexplicable delay on the part of the respondent
APDCL authorities in disbursal of the compensation amount fixed by its own norms to the family of the victim in the case in hand, this Court does not
find any merit in the said submission advanced on behalf of the respondent APDCL authorities as regards the quantum of compensation payable as
per the Office Memorandum prevailing at that point of time. It is also noticed from the Office Memoranda (supra) that there has been periodical
enhancement in the amounts payable for loss of human life. From such periodical enhancement in respect of the compensation amount itself, it is
clearly discernible that the respondent APDCL authorities have themselves found that there are needs for upward revision periodically in the
compensation amounts for different kinds of electrical accidents after taking into account all the relevant factors inasmuch as a reasonable amount of
compensation at a particular point of time might not be reasonable at the later point of time. Such periodical enhancement might be due to various
factors like the changes in the cost of living index, the rates of inflation, etc. The respondent APDCL authorities have formulated the guidelines
providing for compensation amounts for different hazards to victims of electrocution and it cannot be denied that disbursal of such compensation
amount should be prompt and immediate to enable the victims and/or the victim’s family to overcome the sudden loss and to deal with the
untoward situation which have befallen on them suddenly due to such electrocution death which is albeit sudden and unforeseen. In the event the
disbursal of the compensation amount is not made immediately and there is delay in disbursal of the same, it is incumbent on the part of the authorities
to offset the situation for the victims and/or victim’s family by disbursal of the amount of compensation prevailing on the date of such disbursal.
The Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 has prescribed an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of human life. While prescribing the amount of Rs.
4,00,000/- as compensation, it has also been prescribed that in the event a claim is not settled within a period of 120 (one hundred and twenty) days
from the date of occurrence of the electric accident, the delay in payment of compensation shall result in an additional interest of 12 % per annum on
the amount. A reference to the order dated 03.02.2021 passed in the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 1921/2018 [Padmeswar Koch vs. Assam Power
Distribution Company Ltd and 5 others] can be made in this connection.
In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that it is the compensation which has been prescribed in the Office
Memorandum dated 07.11.2019, will be payable in respect of the fatal electrical accident under reference. Accordingly, the respondent APDCL
authorities are directed to make payment of an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioners along with an interest of 12% per annum
on the said amount. Having due regard to the factual situation obtaining in the case in hand, it is directed that the respondent APDCL authorities shall
calculate the interest at 12% per annum w.e.f. 08.02.2019 i.e. the date of submission of the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report by the respondent no.
5 and the same shall be paid to the petitioners viz. Sri Jhon Ronghang and Smti Kareng Phangchopi upon their due identification within a period of 2
(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the respondent APDCL authorities. Notwithstanding such payment, it would
be open for the petitioner to pursue private law remedy for further compensation.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent mentioned above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.