ADDITIONAL SECRETARY OFFICER INCHARGE OF THE CASE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M.P. POORV KSHETRA VIDHYUT VITR Vs. SIYARAM YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which falls for determination is whether Collector, Respondent No. 2, was justified in allowing the claim of respondent No. 1 for relief under Public Liability Insurance Act (No. 6 of 1991) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1991), in lieu of death of Ox, who died due to electrocution. Uncontroverted facts are that Tehsildar, Mohangarh through Sub -Divisional Officer, Jatara District Tikamgarh furnished a report that respondent No. 1 lost his Ox having come in contact with live 11 KV wire which fell on it. This fact was ascertained by lineman. Collector, Tikamgarh on receiving such report drew a proceedings under 1991 Act, wherein, despite of notice, the petitioner herein remained absent. The Collector on a finding that the death of Ox was due to fall of 11 KV live line, awarded compensation of Rs. 6,000/ - by impugned order dated 23.05.2013.

(2.) ASSAILING the order, it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that, the electricity being not a hazardous substance and the death being due to electrocution, the Collector was not justified in allowing the claim. It is urged that the liability to give relief under the Act of 1991 being on the principle of no fault as is contemplated vide section 3 of the Act of 1991 and the electricity being not a hazardous substance it was beyond the jurisdiction of Collector to have awarded the compensation. It is urged that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) ELECTRICITY is a hazardous substance is no more res -integra and has been held to be in M.P. State Electricity Board Jabalpur vs. Collector, Mandla and another: : AIR 2003 M.P. 156 wherein it was observed by His Lordship: -