SANTOSH KUMAR KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction to respondent No. 3 to pay compensation of Rs. 7 lacs with interest as per demand notice, dated 18-6-2004 (Annexure P-6). Brief factual matrix necessary for determination of controversy involved in the petition are that in Village Kapan, Tehsil Janjgir, an unfortunate incident happened on 24-4-2004 in the evening at about 6 p.m., when due to storm, electric pole bearing live electric wires meant for supply of electricity fell down as a result of fall of tree on the pole. The petitioners along with their parents namely, Late Sukhram and Rama Bai resided in the house, which is by the side of the electricity pole. Due to fall of electric pole and live electric wires, Sukhram and his wife Rama Bai came in contact with felled live electric wires and got electrocuted leading to their death. The incident was reported to the Police Station and police recorded merg intimation. Dead bodies were subjected to post-mortem. In the incident, the parents of the petitioners lost their life at one stroke. Marriage of petitioner No. 1 and his sister/petitioner No. 4, which was to be performed on 27-4-2004, i.e., three days after the incident, were also cancelled due to untimely sad demise of both mother and father in the unfortunate tragic incident.

(2.) The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs. 7 lacs from the respondent-Board through demand notice dated 18-6-2004 (Annexure P-6), which was denied by the respondent-Board vide their reply dated 29-7-2004 (Annexure P-7) stating that the incident was a natural calamity. The petitioners thereafter filed this petition for the reliefs as stated above.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised two-fold submissions. It is firstly contended that under the provisions contained in Rules 29, 44, 45 and 46 of the Electricity Rules, 1956, the Board is obliged to conduct periodical inspection of the electric lines maintained by them and the Board is required to take all safety measures to prevent accidents. These provisions relating to safety and security were not followed by the Board. Electric pole was loosely installed. The respondent-Board acted with gross negligence in restoring electricity supply after the storm without making proper enquiry regarding any loss, which may be caused to electricity poles and lines. Therefore, the Board has acted negligently and liable to pay compensation. In the alternative, the second submission is that in view of authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and others, 2002 ACJ 526, irrespective of whether death was caused due to negligence on the part of the respondent-Board, principles of strict liability are applicable as the Board carries on hazardous and dangerous activity. Therefore, in such a case, loss of life is required to be compensated by the Board without any enquiry into tortious liability of the Board under the ordinary law.