Judgment:
A. Pasayat, J.
1. One Jaitri Das lost her life on account of electrocution on 2.4. 1994. Her husband has filed this application for a direction to the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited for (in Short, 'the Corporation') payment of compensation. It is to be noted here that earlier Orissa State Electricity Board (in short, 'OSEB') was opposite party No. 1 and the Corporation has been substituted after it took over OSEB.
2. Petitioner's case in short is that the Jaitri (hereinafter referred to as (these 'deceased') was about 47 years, got electrocuted due to snapping of electric wire from the pole, while she was going to bring water from the public tube well in village Thouri under the jurisdiction of Kendrapara Police Station. Snapping of the line was on account of gross negligence and improper maintenance of the electric wire. While the accident has been accepted by the opposite parties, it has been stated that the allegation of improper maintenance is not correct. On the contrary due to heavy storm the line snapped and there being no negligence involved the petitioner is not liable to get any compensation. It is stated that at the most the act can be described as an act of God, and therefore, no compensation is payable.
3. Preventive measures suggested to be taken may provide safety in future. Those cannot be pressed into service to deny liability of the Corporation. The term 'compensation' as stated in the Oxford Dictionary, signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered. 'Damages' on the other hand constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss of injury sustained, the value estimated in money, or something lost or withheld. The term 'compensation' etymologically suggests the image of balancing one thing against another; its primary signification is equivalence, and the secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent. Pecuniary damages are to be valued on the basis of 'full compensation'. That concept was first stated by Lord Blackborn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1980) AC 25.
4. The 'Rule of Law' requires that the wrongs should not remain unredressed. All the individuals or persons committing wrongs should be liable in an action for damages for breach of civil law or for criminal punishment. 'Compensation' means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given or to make amends for loans, recompense, remuneration or pay; it need not, therefore, necessarily be in terms of money, because law may specify principles on which and manner in which compensation is to be -determined as given. Compensation is an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person demnified may receive equal value for his loss; or be made whole in respect of his injury; something given or obtained as equivalent; rendering of equivalent in value or amount, an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing receive; recompense for whole injury suffered; remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage of every description. The expression 'compensation' is not ordinarily used as in equivalent to 'damages' although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damages in an action for a breach. The term 'compensation' as pointed out in the Oxford Dictionary signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered; 'damages' on the other hand constitute the sum of money, claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained. 'Compensation' is a return for a loss or damages sustained. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. 'Amends' is return for something that is faulty in ourselves or towards others, 'Satisfaction' is that which satisfies the individual requiring it, is given for personal injuries, and may be made either by a return or otherwise, according to disposition of the person to be satisfied, 'Recompense' is a voluntary return for a voluntary service; it is made from a generous feeling and derives its value not so much from the magnitude of service or return, as from intention of the parties towards each other; and it is received not so much as a matter of right as of courtesy. 'Remuneration' is not voluntary as recompense, but it is equally indefinite, being estimated rather according to condition of the person and dignity of service than its positive worth. 'Requital' is the return of a kindness, the making it is an act of gratitude. 'Reward' may be a bad return when it is inadequate to the merits of the person.
5. It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique frame that has been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Merris in West v Sheppard : 1964 AC 326. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. Object of providing compensation is to place claimant as far as possible in the same position financially, as he was before accident. Broadly speaking, in the case of death basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expense, etc. and loss to the estate. Object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive, nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring value of human life and measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation but amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor it should be a source of profit of the person in whose favour it is awarded. Upjohn L.J. in Charter House Credit v. Jolly : (1963) 2 C.B. 683 remarked, 'the assessment of damages has never been an exact science; it is essentially practical'.
6. The question of negligence of a company engaged in transmission of electric energy was considered in Sugbec Railway, Light, Heat Power Company Ltd. v. Vandry : 1920 AC 662. The concerned railway company in exercise of statutory powers had erected two overhead cables for the distribution of electric current. In that case, on account of a violent wind, a branch from a tree growing about 28 feet away from the cables was broken, which resulted in the breaking down of the cables and the high tension current found its way along with the low tension cable into the respondents' premises and caused a fire. An action for damages was brought by the respondents against the concerned power company. The Court of Appeal held that the company was liable for the damage without proof that it had been negligent, since it had failed to establish that it could not have prevented the escape of the electric current, further that its statutory power afforded no defence, since the escape of the current was not necessarily incident to the exercise of those powers.
7. The expression 'act of God' signifies the operation of natural forces free from human intervention, such as lightening. It may be thought to include such unexpected occurrences of nature as severe gale, snowstorms, hurricanes, cyclones and tidal-bures and the like. But every unexpected wind and storm does not operate as an excuse from liability, if there is a reasonable possibility of anticipating their happening. An act of God provides no excuse, unless it is so unexpected that no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate the occurrence, having regard to the conditions of time and place known to be prevailing at. For instance, where by experience of a number of years, the railway, administration knows that in a particular area during a particular season there have been heavy down-pours of rain and consequent extraordinary floods causing damage to their track, they cannot take the plea, that they were due to act of God because it is within their competence to take such steps as would prevent damage. Lord Westbury defined act of God (damnum fatale in Scotch Law) as an occurrence which no human foresight can provide against and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility. This appears to be the nearest approach to the true meaning of act of God. Lord Westbury's definition was approved by Lord Demdin and Shaw in the House of Lords in Bre nock Corporation v. Caledonian Ry. Similarly, Lord Blandaburgh spoke of it as 'an-irresistible and unsearchable providence nullifying all human effort'.
8. The residual question is the quantum of compensation. The deceased was aged about 47 years as evident from the post mortem report. The compensation has been claimed by the husband. Considering all the relevant aspects, we feel compensation of Rs. 45,000/- would be reasonable. Out of the said amount, Rs. 35,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of five years in the name of petitioner, and the balance amount shall be paid to the petitioner on being identified by any of the learned counsel appearing for him. The payment of aforesaid amount of Rs. 45,000/- shall be made within three months from today, and after the same is deposited the fixed deposit and payment as directed shall be made.
The writ application is disposed of accordingly.
A. Deb, J.
9. I agree.