MOSHT MORIOM BEWA Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. S. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. None appears for the State respondent Nos. 3.

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for compensating the death of Md. Hanif Ali, who was the husband of the petitioner. According to the petitioner late Hanif Ali (here-in-after called "deceased") died on 19.6.2001 following electrocution in his agricultural field, while crossing the live wire which was lying on the ground. According to the petitioner the accident took place due to sheer negligence of the respondent authorities due to their failure to repair and maintain the electric line. It is stated that the deceased was 45 years old at the time of his death and he was the sole bread earner of the family consisting of the petitioner, her mother-in-law Mosht. Jamila Bewa aged about 67 years and their daughter Miss. Tahara Khatun aged about 16 years and their sons namely Md. Ismail Ali aged about 12 years, Md. Saleman Ali aged about 10 years and Md. Safior Islam aged about 7 years. The petitioner claims for compensation of Rs.5 (five) lakhs from the respondents. The electricity authority contested the claim by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition the contesting defendants stated that due to heavy thunder storm and rain at Garugaon village from 18.6.2001 branches of trees were falling down as a result of which one 11 KV line from 33/11 KV Abhayapuri Sub-division snapped on 19.6.2001 and unfortunately at that very moment the deceased husband of the writ petitioner, who was passing through that place came in the contact with the live conductor and got electrocuted. Denying allegation of negligence on the part of the electricity authority, it was averred, in the affidavit-in-opposition, that the line was automatically cut down as soon as the conduction came in contact with the ground by blowing D. O. fuses at Thakuranipara. It was further stated that it was beyond the control of the respondent Board to prevent the death of the deceased. On being called for the Chief Electrical Inspector-cum-Advisor i.e. the respondent No. 3 submitted the enquiry report in connection with death of the husband of the petitioner. The report aforesaid, inter-alia, reads as follows :-

(3.) In the report it was mentioned that the Branch of a nearby tree had fallen on the 11 KV line as a result of which the conductor of the 11 KV line got snapped and that the victim came into contact with the said snapped live conductor while crossing the same. The Post Mortem report also suggest that the victim died due to hipovolumic shock as a result of heavy electric shock and that he sustained multiple burn injuries on the chest, both hands and legs. In the report it was opined that the victim was electrocuted due to coming in contact of the snapped conductor, and that it was difficult to come to a clear conclusion whether (a) the live conductor had fallen on the person or (b) the victim had come into contact with snapped conductor, which was lying live on the ground. It was also opined that in the event of the former i.e. (a) there was no violation of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 attributable to the ASEB. A careful perusal of the report aforesaid indicates that the victim got electrocuted while crossing. This implies that live line was lying on the ground. Therefore, it can not be believed that the live line had fallen on the victim while he was passing through the paddy field. In their affidavit-in-opposition the answering respondents stated that there was thunder storm and rain from 18.6.2001 and that the branches of trees were falling down as a result of which the line got snapped on 19.6.2001. This contention of the respondents indicate that they had the information and knowledge regarding the heavy thunder storm and rain etc. on 18.6.2001 itself and the falling of branches of trees due to such heavy thunder storm and rains, which started fell down w.e.f. 18.6.2001. In view of the above, there is nothing on record to find that the respondent had taken any measure to stop the occurrence of any incident of the present nature. That apart, the fact that the line got snapped due to falling of the branches of the trees lead to find that the danger of falling branches on the live line was already looming large and as such the potential danger to cause serious accident of the present nature was already there, without any steps to prevent such probable accident. There is nothing on record to find that the respondent had taken steps to remove such danger, if necessary by cutting the branches of the trees. Relying on the decision held in the case of SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Timudu Oram, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 156, the learned counsel appearing for the State Electricity Board submitted that the falling of the branches of the trees on the line resulting the death of the husband of the petitioner was due to thunder storm and rains, which was an act of the God and as such the Electricity Board was not responsible for the death of the deceased. In the above case referred by the learned counsel, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the mere fact that the wire of electric transmission line belonging to the appellants had snapped and the deceased had come into contact with it and died by itself was not sufficient for awarding compensation. It was also observed that the Court was required to examine as to whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence on the part of the appellants, as a result of which the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In the above referred case one person had illegally taken power supply without the knowledge of the appellant authority by use of a hook from the LI point to their houses by means of an uninsulated GI wire. The unauthorized GI wire through which the line was illegally taken got disconnected and fell on the ground. At that time the father of the respondent was coming that way with his bullock. The bullock came in contact with the live GI wire as a result thereof got electrocuted. Therefore, it appears that the fact that electricity connection was illegally obtained by using unauthorized GI wire was not within the knowledge of the appellant. But in the present case in hand it was very much within the knowledge of the electricity board that the live wire with high voltage was passing above the agricultural land, having branches of trees over it, and that there was heavy thunder storm and rain from 18.6.2001 i.e. the day before the day of incident, as a result of which branches of trees were falling down. Therefore, as the electricity board did not take any step either to disconnect the power supply due to such heavy thunder storm and rains or to remove/cut the nearby branches of the trees, it can be safely held that there was lapse/negligence on the part of the electricity board in maintaining the power line. That apart, from the report submitted by the Chief Electrical Inspector-cum-Advisor i.e. the respondent No. 3, it can be concluded that the live line was lying on the ground and the victim got electrocuted while crossing the same. In view of the above, the contention of the electricity board that the line automatically got cut by blowing D. O. fuse as soon as it touched the ground cannot be accepted. Under the law an obligation is cast on the board in transmitting the electrical energy to take precautionary measure and the board has to be extra vigilant and cautious so that life and properties of persons are not exposed to any risk or fatal consequence. The board is required to be meticulously careful and watchful about the installation, supply of energy and probability of any incident that may be caused due to falling of branches of trees etc.