Electrocution – Writ petition u/Art.226 – Maintainability – High Court directed the appellant-Corporation to pay compensation holding the writ petitions to be maintainable and the disputed facts to not be of much relevance because, according to it, it is the standard of absolute liability that is applicable and not strict liability – Interference with:
Held: If questions of fact are disputed, then Art.226 would not be an appropriate remedy in cases of electrocution – In cases such as these i.e. electrocution of an individual, the standard of liability upon bodies such as the appellant is strict, for not in all cases can it be said that the electricity boards are liable – The transmission of electricity is undoubtedly inherently dangerous – Those who carry out the inherently dangerous activity should bear the burden, and the State is no exception to that rule – Such enterprises operate on a loss distribution mechanism i.e. they are in the best position to spread the loss incurred through insurance or higher prices, as the case may be – They are expected to factor in these possibilities – It is for these reasons that they are liable to compensate the injured/deceased irrespective of any fault on their part, provided that none of the exceptions to the rule of strict liability apply to the case at hand – Granted that they would have taken all reasonable care to protect individuals from electrocution – Further, the multiplier method cannot be applied to determine compensation in cases of electrocution – Since the calculation paradigm as provided for in connection with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is dependent on the multiplier, the scenario thereunder could not have been applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution cases, as done by the High Court in the impugned judgment – Electricity Act 2003 does not provide for the method to calculate compensation – What it does provide is the liability of the licensee to pay compensation in certain scenarios u/s.57 thereof but does not say anything regarding the method applicable to calculating the same – The overarching principle of just and reasonable, fair compensation would govern the calculation here as well, based on the income of the person and other related claims – In the present case, there are disputed questions of facts involved, thus, the Writ Petition seeking compensation filed by the respondent was not maintainable – Interim compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs awarded – Impugned judgment of the Division Bench as also the Single Judge quashed and set aside. [Paras 8, 14-16] Electrocution – Compensation – Yardstick to be used in determination of, discussed. [Para 15]
Electrocution – Standard of liability of electricity boards – Strict or Absolute Liability – Stated. [Para 14]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey (2014) 1 SCC 384. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.