RUSHI PRUSTI Vs. ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A boy of tender age lost his life on account of electrocution. The grief stricken father has filed this application for a direction to the Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (in short, 'the Corporation') to pay compensation. It is his stand that due to negligence of the officials of the Orissa State Electricity Board (in short, 'the Board'), predecessor of the Corporation, Dinabandhu Prusti (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') lost his life. Dinabandhu was a student of class I of Chainpal Primary School. It appears that on 18.12.1994 there was theft of electric wire from 22 K.V. electricity transmission line. One Pitambas Behera, an employee of the Board intimated the lineman working under the Board on 19.12.1994 at about 7 a.m. that there was theft of live electricity wire in between village Chainpal and Lingarakata. He also made an entry in the fuse -call register maintained by lineman at the office. The entry was made on 19.12.1994 at 7 a.m. at the Maintenance Office at Chainpal. Due to theft of live electric wire, the electricity transmission was interrupted for villages Lingarakata and Chainpal. Though requested as none was available, no step was taken for discontinuance of electric supply, as a result of which loose wire was lying in the field. Deceased after taking breakfast went to enjoy free air and death was waiting for him. He came in contact with live wire and died at the spot with several burn injuries on his body. On 19.12.1994, after getting information from the local public, the Inspector -in -charge of Talcher Sadar P.S. arrived at the spot and took the dead body for post -mortem examination and Talcher Sadar P.S. U.D. Case No. 12 of 1994 was registered. Post -mortem was conducted by Dr. Kabita Swain, Asstt. Surgeon, Sub -Divisional Hospital, Talcher. In her report, she had clearly mentioned that death was due to shock caused by electric current and excessive electric burns. People of the locality gathered at the place and a procession was led to the office of the Board at Chainpal. Grievance was made before the authorities and request was made to pay compensation. The officials indicated that they would pay compensation after consulting the higher authorities. This assurance was never translated into reality. As no compensation was paid, this writ application has been filed. It is alleged that there was negligence on the part of the authorities in not taking steps promptly and had prompt steps been taken, a valuable life could have been saved. Compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 has been claimed.

(2.) THE authorities of the Board had taken the stand that no negligence was involved and all possible steps were taken and the boy should have been aware that there was loose electric line hanging and should not have gone near it. The Corporation has reiterated Board's stand that it took all possible care and caution and there is no scope to pay compensation.

(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 or 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 being 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 Blackburn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1880) 5 AC 25.