AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The subject-matter in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the death of the victim, Late Manuj Konch claimed to
have occurred in an accident due to electrocution and a direction has been sought to the respondent APDCL authorities to grant adequate
compensation for such death.
The relevant background facts, in brief, leading to the institution of the writ petition are as follows : the petitioner is the father of one Manuj Konch.
The family of the petitioner resides in Village â€" Soru Ajoha, Post Office â€" Kolakata, Police Station â€" Dhemaji, District â€" Dhemaji, Assam. It
is projected that on 18.09.2016, the son of the petitioner was taking bath near the tube-well located inside the premises of their residence. Due to
sudden carriage of high voltage of electricity in the electrical lines, caused by a damaged transformer, in the locality under Dhamaji Electrical Sub-
Division, APDCL, Manuj Konch received shock due to electrocution. Though Monuj Konch was taken to the nearby health facility, Bengenagarah
CHC immediately, but the Medical Officer, NHRM at Bengenagarah CHC vide Cadaver Slip declared that the victim was brought dead to the
Centre. An application reporting the death vide death report was duly submitted and the Registrar of Birth and Death, Bengenagarah CHC, District
â€" Dhemaji had issued a death certificate recording the death of Late Monuj Konch on 18.09.2016 vide Death Certificate dated 01.10.2016. In
connection with the said death of the victim, a First Information Report (FIR) was made before the In-charge, Machkhowa Out Post under Dhemaji
Police Station by the petitioner on 09.10.2016 and the same was recorded as Machkhowa Out Post General Diary Entry No. 149 dated 10.10.2016.
2.1. The deceased was aged about 22 years of age and he was the elder son of the petitioner. The deceased was a Graduate in Arts and after passing
is B.A. examination in the year 2015, he took admission in M.A. Course in Sociology in Dibrugarh University in the year 2016.
2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that when despite the fact that the death of the deceased was caused due to electrocution for faults attributable on
the part of the respondent APDCL authorities, no compensation had been paid. The petitioner approached the respondent no. 1 by filing a
representation on 17.02.2017 seeking adequate compensation for the loss suffered by the family due to the death of Monuj Konch. As no response
was received from the respondent APDCL authorities with regard to the said representation, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this
writ petition seeking the relief, stated above.
Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for respondent
nos. 1-3 and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Junior Government Advocate for respondent nos. 4-6.
Projecting as above, it is submitted by Mr. Patgiri that the electrical accident was caused due to fault 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.
6, he has submitted that it has been established that the death was due to carriage of sudden and abrupt high voltage of electricity in the electrical line
of the motor connected to the tube-well, which was unexpected. The deceased was simply taking bath near the tube-well located inside his house
premises. He has further submitted that despite occurrence of the event of death in the year 2016, the respondent APDCL authorities were
lackadaisical in their approach and have not provided due compensation to the family of the victim. He has submitted that the matters regarding high
voltage of electricity in the locality and the death of the petitioner’s son were brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji by the
local public. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji caused an enquiry and in the said enquiry also, it was established that the death of the victim was
caused due to electrocution. After such sudden and unexpected death, the family of the petitioner was in great shock and grief and due to such
reasons, the FIR was lodged a bit belatedly. Just because an FIR was not lodged immediately the same cannot be a cause for denying the relief when
the respondent APDCL authorities were well aware of the incident and when the cause of death has been well established.
On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent APDCL authorities has submitted that though it is a
fact that the victim died on 18.09.2016 but in the absence of a post-mortem examination report, there is no clear indication as regards the cause of
death of the victim. In the absence of the post-mortem examination report it cannot be held with certainty, he has submitted, that the death of the
victim was caused due to electrocution in the manner alleged.
Mr. Pegu, learned State Counsel has submitted that after the accident was reported to the respondent no. 6, an enquiry was caused through a
Senior Electrical Inspector and 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.
I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials made available by the
parties through their pleadings.
The respondent APDCL authorities has submitted its response through an affidavit-in-opposition filed on 11.12.2020 wherein it is inter alia averred
that on verification, it was found that the transmission of 11 Kilo Volt (KV) spur line with 63 Kilo Volt Ampere (KVA) Sub-Station was running
smoothly at Soru Ajuha Village. As per such verification, it was found that the accident had occurred when the deceased was taking bath inside his
own house premises near a tube-well, with which an electric motor was fitted. According to the respondent APDCL authorities, the alleged incident
took place due to improper wiring of the electric motor connected to the tube-well. It is further stated that since no post-mortem examination on the
dead body of the victim was carried out and the FIR was lodged subsequent to the cremation of the deceased, it cannot be held with certainty that the
cause of death was due to electrocution. From the said averments, one gets the idea that the version of the respondent APDCL authorities is to the
effect that the responsibility for the death of the deceased cannot be affixed on the respondent APDCL authorities. The respondent APDCL
authorities have, however, acknowledged the receipt of a copy of the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report.
It is found that after the incident on 18.09.2016, a petition was submitted by the local public before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji in respect of
the incident that occurred on 18.09.2016 in connection with the electric transformer installed in Soru Ajoha Village and the death of the victim. The
Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji vide his order dated 15.10.2016 directed the Circle Officer, Dhemaji to cause an enquiry in that regard. An enquiry
was accordingly caused by the officials with field inspection and by meeting the Gaonburah and other villagers. The Report submitted by the Circle
Officer indicated that it was reported that the electrical transformer in the village had problems and many incidents had occurred earlier for the said
problematic electrical transformer. It was also reported that four nos. of cows also died earlier because of electrocution. The Report was submitted by
stating that the deceased died due to sudden electrocution while he was taking bath near the tube-well. The death stated to have occurred due to
electrocution of the electrical motor fitted to the tube-well.
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. 6 who is authorised under Section 161, Electricity Act, 2003 to enquire into such an accident occurred on 18.09.2016 and to
submit a report, conducted an enquiry in respect of the electrical accident in question and thereafter, had submitted an Electrical Accident Enquiry
Report. The respondent no. 6 has filed an affidavit wherein it has been stated that the enquiry under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was
conducted through the Senior Electrical Inspector, Tezpur Zone, Tezpur assisted by the Electrical Inspector, Tezpur Zone, Tezpur into the electrical
accident occurred at about 12- 30 p.m. on 18.09.2016. A copy of the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report submitted by the Senior Electrical Inspector
and the Electrical Inspector, on 07.06.2018, has been annexed to the said affidavit.
The Electrical Accident Enquiry Report has stated that site verification was done by the said two Inspectorate officials with the assistance of
nearby residents of the locality. The Report has further stated that the house of the victim got service connection of power from 2-wire, 220 Volt
overhead line drawn composite with 11 KV overhead line. At the time of the incident, the electrical network of the victim’s locality had to
encounter flowing of very high level of electricity for a short while and many electric gadgets, wirings and bulbs in the neighbourhood got damaged. At
the time of the incident, the victim was taking his bath near the tube-well installed in the house premises of the family. At that time, the tube-well as
well as the water coming out from the tube-well received high level of electricity through the connecting cable of the motor fitted with the tube-well
and as a result, the victim got heavy electric shock and died on the spot.
In so far as the causes leading to the electrical accident is concerned, the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report has stated that lack of adequate
protective devices (MCB/MCCB) in the secondary end of the concerned Electrical Sub-Station and lack of periodical maintenance of the line clearing
branches of the trees grown near the lines were the causes behind the accident. The Electrical Accident Enquiry Report has further indicated that the
fuses of inordinate higher rating were provided at the secondary end of the transformer concerned and the fuses did not blow off at the time of
charging with high voltage of the concerned line for which overall protection failed to prevent the accident. It is also mentioned that from the facts and
circumstances leading to the accident, contraventions were found with regard to Regulation 35(3)(i) & Regulation 64(3) of the Central Electricity
Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 on the part of the owner of the supply system i.e. APDCL. 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 besides strict compliance of the safety provisions as laid down under the Regulations to prevent
such accident in future. Time to time periodical maintenance/checking of electric lines by the owner of the supply system has also been emphasised
for ensuring public safety.
It has, thus, clearly emerged from the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report submitted in respect of the incident dated 18.09.2016 that the electrical
accident which resulted in the death of the victim - Late Manuj Konch, had occurred due to sudden flow of very high voltage of electricity for a short
while in the electrical network near the victim’s locality. The victim who was taking bath near the tube- well inside his house premises, had
received high electric shock as the tube-well as well as the water coming out from the tube-well received high level of electricity through the
connecting cable of the motor connected with the tube well. It has further emerged that as a result of such sudden high voltage of electricity, many
electric gadgets, wirings and bulbs in the locality got damaged. In such fact situation, the contention sought to be advanced by the respondent APDCL
authorities that the victim died because of his negligence has stood belied. The damages caused to the electric gadgets, wirings and bulbs in the locality
go to substantiate the fact that there was fault in the electrical system itself which cannot be shifted to the victim. Thus, in such situation, it is not open
for the respondent APDCL authorities in the face of their own inaction and omission, to take a plea of non-availability of post-mortem examination
report for denial of due compensation to the family of the victim. The principle of strict liability has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India 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. The Electrical Accident Enquiry Report has also indicated about the lack of adequate
protective devices (MCB/MCCB) in the secondary end of the concerned Electrical Sub-Station and lack of periodical maintenance of the line clearing
branches of the trees grown near the lines. From the causes of the accident it has clearly emerged that no fault can be attributed to the victim
whereas there were contraventions and non-compliance of statutory protective measures on the part of the owner of the electrical sub-system. 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 electrical power system i.e. the respondent APDCL authorities. It is, thus, evident that the victim in the case in hand had met his
death due to acts attributable on the part of the respondent APDCL authorities.
The Board of Directors of the respondent APDCL authorities by an Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013 had provided different quantum of
compensation payable to the next-of-kin of the victims in respect of fatal electric accidents. In the said Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, a
detailed procedure had also been 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 prescribed. It is stated at the
bar that Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (AERC) has notified 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 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 Electrical Accident Enquiry Report submitted in respect of the electrocution case in hand has 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 accident, the respondent no. 6 had submitted his Electrical Accident Enquiry Report only on 07.06.2018 in respect of the fatal electrical
accident that occurred on 18.09.2016. What took the respondent authorities such long period of time to enquire into the 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.
It is contended on behalf of the respondent APDCL authorities that as the fatal accident under reference had occurred in the year 2016, 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 observed that due to various factors including the changes in the cost of
living index, the rates of inflation, etc., 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. 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 always unanticipated. 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.
In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that it is the compensation which has been prescribed in the Office
Memorandum dated 07.11.2019, is payable in respect of the fatal electric accident under reference. Accordingly, the respondent APDCL authorities
are directed to make payment of a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner 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. 07.06.2018 i.e. the date of submission of the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report by the respondent no. 6 and the same shall
be paid to the petitioner upon her 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.
With the observations made and directions given above, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.