Rajesh Kumar Vs. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board and ors. - Court Judgment

Bhawani Singh, J.

1. Rajesh Kumar, petitioner, aged 17 years, has filed this petition claiming compensation from the respondents on account of their negligence in maintaining the electricity supply line which resulted in electric shock to him.

2. According to the petitioner, the respondent Board is responsible for super-intending, managing and controlling the transmission and supply of electricity in the State of Himachal Pradesh. On the date of occurrence, the petitioner, who is a young villager, was working in his fields. He used to earn his livelihood from the agriculture and rearing cattle. He has an aged and illiterate mother in the village. On 27.7.1993 at about 10 a.m. he took out his cattle for grazing to his fields. While doing so, the petitioner and one of his bullocks came in contact with the naked energized electric conductor. As a result, the bullock died on the spot due to electric shock while the petitioner after raising alarm also collapsed. The cries of the petitioner attracted his mother and some people of the area including Budh Ram. The petitioner was immediately rushed to the Civil Hospital, Kullu. The matter was also reported to the police. The petitioner remained admitted in the hospital at Kullu till 9.8.1993 when he was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, where he remained from 10.8.1993 to 28.10.1993 and where he was operated upon twice. Initially, the petitioner was operated upon on 14.8.1993. In the said operation, his index finger of left hand, ring finger and terminal phalanx of index finger of right hand were amputated. The petitioner was again operated upon on 25.10.1993 for amputation of left hand and forearm. The petitioner has stated that in addition to the aforesaid disabilities, the fingers and palm of his right hand have been mutilated to such an extent that the petitioner cannot perform any work even with his right hand. These injuries and the treatment prescribed by the doctor have been mentioned in the discharge slip (Annexure P-2). In the disability certificate (Annexure P-3) issued by the Department of Surgery, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, permanent loss of functions to the extent of 65 per cent in relation to left upper limb and 25 per cent in relation to right upper limb has been shown. The bullock was also subjected to post-mortem examination by the Veterinary Officer of Veterinary Hospital, Sainj, District Kullu (Annexure P-4). According to the doctor, the bullock died due to electrocution. The certificate issued by the President, Gram Panchayat, Reila (Annexure P-5) also states that the petitioner received injuries and his bullock died of electrocution. The petitioner claims that the negligence on the part of the respondents is writ large and they are liable to pay compensation to him for the suffering which he had undergone. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of his bullock, Rs. 20,000/- for self treatment and Rs. 4,00,000/- for the disability suffered by him.

3. On the other hand, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have stated, inter alia, that there was no negligence on their part in running and maintaining the electric supply line. The petitioner got electrocuted of his own. The line was fully equipped with safety devices in accordance with the provisions of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. It has fuse system and, therefore, is free from all sorts of danger. In fact, the electricity pole of 11 KV HT spur line fell due to the bad weather and high velocity wind on the night intervening 26 and 27.7.1993 and remained hanging at an angle of 10 towards the conductor which remained with the pin insulator at a height of 1.10 metres from the ground level with the conductor hanging over it intact and the electricity supply remained on without any short circuit or earthing. The petitioner might have crossed under the conductor/ supply line and got electrocuted. It is an act of God beyond the reasonable control of the replying respondents and, therefore, they cannot be held responsible in any manner. The income of the petitioner has also been disputed. Further, the bullock was of Durga Sharma and not of the petitioner. She was asked to accept Rs. 1,000 as cost and compensation for the said bullock though it had not died due to negligence on the part of the respondents.

4. Respondent No. 3 has also filed the reply. There is an enquiry report by the Assistant Electrical Inspector which points out that the electricity line was sufficiently down but was not touching the earth and fuses were intact and the line continued to operate. Due to rainy season there was grass and the petitioner could not judge the presence of wires.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this court can award compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution without going to the civil court to lay the claim. In support of his contention he relied upon S.P. Gupta v. President of India AIR 1982 SC 149; Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802; Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1026; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K; 1986 ACJ 867 (SC); M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 ACJ 386 (SC); Jaram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1988 ACJ 1083 (HP); Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1988 ACJ 780 (HP); Thressia v. Kerala State Electricity Board 1987 ACJ 880 (Kerala); A.S. Mittal v. State of U.P. 1989 SC 1570; SAHELI, a Women's Resources Centre v. Commissioner of Police Delhi, 1990 ACJ 345 (SC); Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1417; Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thillaivillalan AIR 1991 SC 1231; Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar 1991 ACJ 1034 (SC); University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai AIR 1991 Kerala 396; Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu 1992 ACJ 283 (SC); Padma Behari Lal v. Orissa State Electricity Board 1992 ACJ 554 (Orissa); Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. University of Calcutta AIR 1992 Cal 207; Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa 1993 ACJ 787 (SC) and Mohan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1994 ACJ 325 (HP).

7. This question need not be examined for two reasons. Firstly, it is well settled that compensation in such cases can be awarded by the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution and secondly, the learned counsel on the opposite side submitted that there is no dispute about the jurisdiction of this court to entertain such like cases and award proper relief. Consequently, we turn to the case on merits.

8. It is the duty of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to maintain its transmission/supply lines safely, properly and efficiently so that they do not pose any danger to the lives of people. The maintenance of the supply lines in effective manner requires constant patrolling to avoid accidents. It has been stated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that during the night of 26.7.1993 the weather was inclement and the electric poles had fallen due to high velocity wind. In these circumstances, it was the primary duty of the officials of these respondents to undertake patrolling during the night itself or in the very early morning to see the conditions of the poles and the lines. This was not done. This is a gross negligence. The petitioner is a villager. He was in his fields for agricultural operations. He did not notice the bullock dying of electrocution due to fallen wires in the grass which is normally very high during rainy season. The contention of the respondents that there was no damage to the electricity wires and the supply was still continuing is not correct. It has come in evidence that electricity wire was lying on the ground in the grass which could not be noticed. This fact is sufficient to establish the negligence of the respondents in maintaining the line.

9. Now the question arises as to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled for. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Seemu alias Seema v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board 1994 ACJ 623 (HP) and Shakuntala Devi v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (1995) 2 SCC 369 and submitted that the facts of these two cases being similar, the petitioner should be awarded at least Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of damages with interest at the rate of 10 per cent from the date of accident. Mr. R.S. Jamalta, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has submitted that the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- is on the higher side and deserves to be rejected and further the interest may not be awarded.

10. As stated above, the negligence on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is clearly established. The respondents contested this case forcefully despite the fact that the petitioner has suffered serious injuries on account of their negligence. The accident has rendered the petitioner handicapped. However, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case we direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner as compensation with interest from the date of accident till payment at the rate of 10 per cent. The entire amount be paid to the petitioner within a month from today by depositing the same in a nationalised bank, in the name of the petitioner, located near the village of the petitioner. The Bank Manager would invest the said amount in a fixed deposit for a period of three years. The interest accruing on this deposit be paid to the petitioner every month or quarterly. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Costs on the parties.