Omprakash Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The petition is by the father of the deceased Ravindra Kumar Sahu, who met with a fatal accident and died due to electrocution while performing

his duties of maintenance and repairs of the electric lines. The allegation is that the incident occurred due to fauly electricity-line erected by

respondent no.2/CSPDCL, consequently the son of petitioner aged about 24 years sustained electric shock and succumbed to it.

As per the indisputable averments of the petition, son of petitioner was entrusted with the task of maintenance and repairs of solar power plant

established by CREDA/ respondents 3 & 4 on 13.08.2019 on a remuneration of Rs.10,660/- per month. While the petitioner's son was engaged in the

task of replacing the defective bulb in the solar powered panels, unfortunately he came in contact with a live electricity wire, which was running very

close to the solar powered pole and sustained fatal injuries due to electrocution which eventually led to his death.

In the instant petition, compensation has been claimed. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents under the rules were duty

bound to conduct the periodical inspection of the electric lines, poles, transformers etc., maintained by them and to take care of the safety measures to

prevent the accidents. These provisions relating to safety and security are not followed by the Board. It is further submitted irrespective of whether

death was caused due to negligence on the part of the respondent-Board, principles of strict liability are applicable as the respondents carry on

hazardous and dangerous activity. Consequently the loss of life is required to be compensated by the respondents without any enquiry into tortious

liability of the Board under the ordinary law.

On the other hand, Mr. K.R. Nair, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for respondents 3 & 4 oppose

the arguments and submit that the disputed issue is as to whether any negligence was on the part of the respondents or not.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The Supreme Court in  Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari 2002 ACJ 526 : (AIR 2002 SC 551) (supra)

elaborated the doctrine of strict liability which has its origin in English common law, in cases of death of a citizen due to snap electrocution where a

very limited scope of defence was left to an incumbent, who is obliged to adhere to the requisite safety measures. The said principle of strict liability

has been applied irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the Managers/Operators of undertaking with activity involving

hazardous or risky exposure to human life. Paras 8, 9 & 10 are relevant and quoted hereinbelow:

“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 liabilityâ€. 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 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.

The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English common law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher, Blackbur,

J, the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision : (All ERp. 7E-F)

“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 damages which is the natural consequences of its

escapeâ€​.

“10. “There are seven exceptions formulated by means of case-law to the doctrine of strict liability. It is unnecessary to enumerate those

exceptions barring one which is this : “Act of stranger i.e., if the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, the rule does not

applyâ€​. (Vide P.535, Winfield on Tort, 15th Edn.)â€​

At para 12 of M.P. Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari (supra), the law laid down in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC

1086 : (1987) 1 SCC 395 was also taken note of by the Supreme Court in the following words :-

“12. Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the accident in

the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not

subject to any of the exceptions to the principles of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcherâ€​.

Further this court while following the decision of Supreme Court in Shail Kumari (Supra) applied the doctrine of strict liability in case of Santosh

Kumar Kashyap and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2014 STPL 4831 wherein it was observed that though ordinarily, a claim for compensation and

damages caused due to negligence of other party has to be raised before the Civil Court or in case where for a particular tortious liability any remedy

is provided in any law, before the Court or Tribunal constituted under such laws, for example, cases relating to motor accidents, fatal accidents or

workmen compensation, however, the Supreme Court in Shail Kumari (Supra) applied the doctrine of strict liability which has its origin in English

common law, in cases of death of a citizen due to snap electrocution.

Here in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's son died while performing the duty in the premises of maintenance, repairs of solar

power plant which is maintained by CREDA and during discharge of his duty, he died. Thus taking into account a significant fact that the death of

petitioner's son occurred due to electrocution, in my view, the ratio of decision reported in Shail Kumari (Supra) would be applicable to this case also.

In view of the above position of law, the writ petition is allowed. Now coming to the point as to what would be the amount of compensation to be

awarded, the provisions contained in second schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act can be taken as guidelines. The status of family and financial

condition of the petitioner are not in dispute. There is no denial of fact that the deceased was drawing Rs.10,600/- per month at the relevant time.

Therefore, considering the age of the deceased and the age of petitioner (father of deceased) who is stated to be 50 years, in the opinion of this Court,

the interest of justice would be sub-served if a lump-sum compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that

respondents 2 & 3 shall pay the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 45 days, failing which, the amount would carry further

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of incident till the date of realisation.