Baila Khatun @ Bajala Khatun vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 551 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/17

GAHC010111302020




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/3233/2020

         BAILA KHATUN @ BAJALA KHATUN
         W/O. SAFIUR RAHMAN, VILL. TOKRABANDHA, P.S. CHAPAR, DIST.
         DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783348.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
         REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, POWER AND
         ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-06.

         2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.
          REP. BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
         APDCL
          BIJULI BHAVAN
          PALTAN BAZAR
          GUWAHATI-01.

         3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

          (HRA)
          APDCL
          BIJULI BHAVAN
          PALTAN BAZAR
          GUWAHATI-01.

         4:THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER (LAW)

          APDCL
          BIJULI BHAVAN
          PALTAN BAZAR
                                                   Page No.# 2/17

             GUWAHATI-01.

            5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

             KOKRAJHAR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE
             APDCL
             LAR
             KOKRAJHAR
             DIST. KOKRAJHAR
             ASSAM
             PIN-783370.

            6:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER

             DHUBRI ELECTRICAL DIVISION
             APDCL
             GAURIPUR
             ASSAM
             DIST. DHUBRI
             ASSAM
             PIN-783331.

            7:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

             BILASIPARA ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
             APDCL
             LAR
             BILASIPARA
             DHUBRI
             ASSAM
             PIN-783301.

            8:THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR

             GOVT. OF ASSAM
             MAHAVAIRAB BUILDING CHANDMARI
             SOUTH SARANIA
             GHY.-03

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MD H R AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL
                                                                     Page No.# 3/17

                                BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                    ORDER

Date : 17.02.2022

Heard Mr. H.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B. Deori, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 7 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to

7.

2) The case of the petitioner is that on 27.03.2015 at about 12.00 noon, while her son, namely, Shohidul Islam, aged 18 years was in the process of removing mobile phone charger from switch board in his own house, he received a electric shock (i.e. electrocuted) and became senseless and immediately taken to hospital, but the doctors declared him dead. The petitioner came to know that the cause of power surge was because one 11 KV disc insulator of the double pole structure of 16KVA transformer sub-station of village- Tokrabandha got punctured and broken as a result of which the 11 KV overhead electric bare wire conductor snapped and fell live on bare live LT conductors for which LT conductor got induced with high voltage and burnt service lines. On the same day an FIR was lodged at Salkocha Police Outpost, which was entered as Salkocha Out-Post General Diary Entry No. 508 dated 27.03.2015. The police conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased son of the petitioner on 28.03.2015 and the cause of death was mentioned as "cardiac arrest as a result of electrocution sustained by the deceased". The Sub Divisional Engineer, Bilasipara Sub Division (respondent no. 7) was informed of Page No.# 4/17

the incident and the said authority had prepared an inquiry report dated 06.07.2015 wherein it was indicated that "One number of 11 KV disc insulator of the double pole structure of 16KVA transformer of village- Tokrabandha got punctured and broken. The 11 KV line conductor snapped and fallen on LT conductors, LT conductor got induced with high voltage and burnt service lines and equipments of many consumers ...." The petitioner projects that a representation was submitted to the respondent authorities claiming compensation, but as no compensation was paid as per OM dated 22.12.2008 and 18.12.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the APDCL respondents to pay compensation owing to the death of her son due to electrocution arising out of negligence of the said authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was negligence on the part of the APDCL authorities as the villagers were not cautioned of such power surge and the electricity was not disconnected. In support of his submissions and to show that compensation owing to electrocution on death by electrocution can be given in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases, viz., (i) Padmeswar Konch v. Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. & ors., W.P.(C) 1921/2018 decided by this Court on 03.02.2021; and (ii) Abdul Khalieque v. The State of Assam & Ors., W.P.(C) 3436/2016, decided by this Court on 23.11.2021 .

3) Per contra, opposing the writ petition, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 7 has reiterated the statements made in the affidavit- in- opposition and has submitted that the unfortunate accident had occurred after One number of 11 KV disc insulator of the double pole structure of 16KVA Page No.# 5/17

transformer sub-station of village- Tokrabandha got punctured and broken, which caused the 11 KV line conductor to snap and it fell down on the LT conductor as a result of which the LT conductor got induced with high voltage and burnt service lines and equipments of many consumers and also electrocuted the son of the petitioner. It is submitted that this was not a case of any negligence but the accident can be said to be an act of God for which the respondent nos. 2 to 7 cannot be held to be responsible or liable. It has been submitted that the petitioner should have filed a civil suit to claim compensation claiming action in tort. It is submitted that as the respondents have seriously denied the claim, highly disputed claim cannot be decided in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 7 has referred to the principles of claim against tortious liability on the ground that the accident was an act of God and submits that the same was a good defence against tortious claim. In this regard, reference is made on the book named "Winfield and

Jolowicz on Tort", 17th Edition by W.V.H. Rogers, M.A. published by Sweet and Maxwell. In support of his submissions that the petitioner ought to have filed a civil suit and writ would not be maintainable, reliance is placed on the following cases, viz., (i) SDO, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. & Ors. v. Timudu Oram, (2005) 6 SCC 156; (ii) M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 162; and (iii) Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. & Ors. vs. Sukamani Das (Smt.) & Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 298.

4) Perused the materials on record and due consideration has been given to the cases cited at the Bar by both sides.

Page No.# 6/17

5) In the case of Sukamani Das (supra), the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 7 has placed reliance on the following observations made by the Supreme Court of India, which is quoted below:-

"6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedly prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants". The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. Mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to the appellant No. 1 had snapped and the deceased had come into contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come into contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the Civil Court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995 ."

6) The cases of Timudu Oram (supra) was shown to show that as the appellants before the Supreme Court of India had disputed its liability, it was held that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was not Page No.# 7/17

justified. The said cases of Timudu Oram (supra) and Shail Kumari (supra) were both cited to show that in the case of Shail Kumari (supra), the original claim was made by filing a civil suit.

7) The facts relevant to the determination in the case of Sukamani Das (supra) is at para 3 of the said judgment. The relevant portion is narrated below:-

"3. ... It was averred in the writ petition that on 4-8-1996 Pratap Chandra Das, while he was proceeding from his village to another place for marketing, decided to return to his village as dark clouds gathered in the sky and, there were thunderbolts also. While he was returning it had started raining and when he was walking along the Gosipatna-Amara Road he came in contact with an electric wire which was lying across the road after getting snapped from the overhead electric line. It was further averred that the electric wire had snapped because of the negligence of the GRIDCO and its officers (the appellants) in not properly maintaining the electricity transmission line and, therefore, they were liable to pay damages for their negligent act. In support of her claim the petitioner had produced a copy of the FIR, the inquest report and the post-mortem notes. It was further stated that even though she had made representations to the GRIDCO for payment of compensation it had disputed its liability and refused to pay any compensation. She claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of her husband, as her husband was 53 years old when he died, was running a grocery shop and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. In their counter-affidavit the appellants stated that because of the thunderbolt and lightening one of the conductors of the 12W LT line had snapped even though proper guarding was provided. As soon as the information regarding the snapping of line was received from the Line-helper residing at village Amara the power was disconnected. The officers of the appellant had thereafter rushed to that spot and had noticed that one shackle insulator had broken due to lightening and the conductor had also snapped from that shackle insulator along with the guarding and the sub-station fuse had also blown out. It was further stated in their counter-affidavit that on inquiry the officers had learnt that Pratap Chandra Das had died due to lightening and not because he had come in contact with the snapped live wire. It was stated by way of defence that the 12W LT line had snapped because of an act of God and not Page No.# 8/17

because of any negligence on the part of the appellant and its officers. Thus, the appellants had denied the fact that Pratap Chandra Das had died as a result of coming into contact with the live electric wire and also raised a defence that even if Pratap Chandra Das had died as a result of coming into contact with the live electric wire it was a pure case of accident arising out of an act of God and his death was not because of any negligence on the part of the appellant and its officers in maintaining the transmission line. It was also contended before the High Court on behalf of the appellants that the writ petition was not a proper remedy as the facts stated by the writ petitioner were disputed by them and the dispute between the parties could not be decided without evidence being led by both the sides."

8) In the case of Timudu Oram (supra), the background facts are as follows:-

"3. The facts of Civil Appeal No.1726 of 1999 arising against the order passed by the High Court of Orissa in Writ Petition bearing OJC No.13281 of 1997 are:-

One Themba Bhim, a co-villager of the deceased had taken power supply to his L.I. point. Some other villagers of the village Khuntagaon viz, Ralbindra Oram, Fatha Oram, Gobardhan Kisan and Etwa Oram had illegally taken power supply without the knowledge of GRIDCO Authorities by use of hook from the LI point to their houses by means of an uninsulated GI wire. On 22-8-1997 the unauthorised G.I. wire through which the line was illegally taken, got disconnected and fell on the ground. At that time the father of the respondent Japana Oram was coming with his bullock. The bullock came in contact with the live GI wire and as a result thereof got electrocuted. On finding this Japana Oram tried to rescue the bullock and got electrocuted. His wife came to his rescue and hearing her cries her daughter Sabi Oram while trying to detach her parents also was electrocuted. The incident was reported to the local police by the villagers of the Khuntagaon on 23-8-1997 wherein the fact of illegal hooking and death due to electrocution was admitted. The local police enquired into the matter and reported the cause and manner of death as stated above. On 23-8-1997 the Junior Engineer of GRIDCO sent a telegram to the Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Orissa, for necessary action at his end. The SDO, Electrical Sub-Division, Ujalapur on 24-

8-1997 also submitted report in which the cause of death was mentioned to Page No.# 9/17

be due to illegal electric connection taken through hook. On 16-9-1997 respondent herein filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack being OJC No.13281 of 1997 claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. Counter affidavit was filed by the appellants herein. In the Counter affidavit it was contended that death occurred were due to the negligence of the deceased themselves and the electric live wire were belonging to and maintained by the GRIDCO had not snapped and, therefore, the appellants were not liable to pay any compensation. By the impugned judgment the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent herein.

4. In Civil Appeal No. 4552 of 2005 [@ SLP(C) No.9788 of 1998] arising from OJC No. 6290 of 1994, on the night of 10-5-1984 due to heavy storm and rain, one LT conductor snapped. This happened despite the fact that the appellant had taken adequate steps to maintain the supply line properly. Before the storm and rain on the night of 10-5-1984 the supply line was checked by the Junior Engineer and the lineman in the regular course of checking. However, before information about the snapping of the line was received by the appellants, the deceased while moving in the morning came in contact with the snapped electric line and became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. The respondent had filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Jajpur against the appellants claiming compensation for the death of deceased being Money Suit No.199 of 1987. The said suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Jajpur vide order dated 16-5-1992. Thereafter, after a delay of 10 years, in the year 1994 the present writ petition was filed in the High Court. The High Court ignoring the fact that the suit filed on the same cause of action had already been dismissed and awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the respondent. According to the appellant, the death occurred not because of their fault but due to act of God.

5. In Civil Appeal No. 4560 of 2005 [@ SLP(C) No.5591 of 1999] arising from OJC No.4247/97 the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack inter alia on the allegations that on 28-5-1992 at about 12.00 noon while her husband was returning from the polling station, a live electric wire suddenly snapped and fell on him as a result of which he received severe electrical burn injuries and lost his senses. Some local people took him to the S.D. Hospital, Jajpur but on the way he breathed his last. The respondent alleged that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the appellants and claimed Page No.# 10/17

compensation for the death of the deceased. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellants, it was inter alia submitted that generation and distribution of the energy are regulated through statutory provisions namely the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the rules framed thereunder. The family of the deceased did not lodge a complaint/FIR in the police station. According to the appellants the husband of the respondent may have died due to electric shock but it was not due to fall of electric wire. The allegations made in the writ petition that, death occurred due to negligence of the appellants was denied. It was stated that there was no negligence on the part of the appellants. It was also submitted that the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact which could not be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the writ petition and commanded the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation to the respondent."

9) Thus, on facts, the three cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 7 can be distinguished.

a. In the case of Sukamani Das (supra), the appellant had been able to demonstrate that after the incident, the officers of the appellant had thereafter rushed to that spot and had noticed that one shackle insulator had broken due to lightning and the conductor had also snapped from that shackle insulator along with the guarding and the sub-station fuse had also blown out and that on inquiry the officers had learnt that Pratap Chandra Das had died due to lightning and not because he had come in contact with the snapped live wire. Accordingly, it was the defence of the appellant that the 12W LT line had snapped because of an act of God and not because of any negligence on the part of the appellant and its officers. Thus, it is apparent that the case in hand is not similar to the facts of the case of Sukamani Das (supra).

Page No.# 11/17

b. From the facts of the case of Timudu Oram (supra), it is clear that in the first out of three cases, it was a clear case of electricity theft by one of the deceased and in the process death was caused. In the second cases, the writ petition was entertained after money suit was dismissed. In the third case no complaint/ FIR was lodged and the death due to fall of electric wires was disputed and denied. Thus, the facts in the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case in hand.

c. In the case of Shail Kumari (supra), notwithstanding that the original claim was made by way of a civil suit, but the relevant observations of the Supreme Court of India are contained in paragraph 7 to 9 thereof, which is quoted below:-

"7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.

8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to Page No.# 12/17

human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.

9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English common law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL 330: (1861-73) All ER Rep 1. Blackburn, J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision:

"The true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."

10) Thus, it is well settled that if the electricity energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. Unlike the case of Sukamani Das (supra), where one shackle insulator had broken due to lightning and the conductor had also snapped from that shackle insulator along with the guarding and the sub-station fuse had also blown out and that on inquiry the officers had learnt that the deceased had died due to lightning and not because he had come in contact with the snapped live wire, in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that there was any safety device to prevent puncture and resultant breaking of one 11 KV disc Page No.# 13/17

insulator of the double pole structure of 16KVA transformer sub-station of village- Tokrabandha or to prevent 11 KV overhead electric bare wire conductor from falling on the live on bare live LT conductors after it snapped and that the safety devices had failed due to some act of God like lightning strike as in that case.

11) The respondent nos. 2 to 7 have not been able to prima facie show that the puncture and breaking of disc insulator or the resultant power surge or high voltage that caused death of the deceased was an act of God. Therefore, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukamani Das (supra), and Timudu Oram (supra), the Court is required to examine as to whether the wire snapped as a result of any negligence on part of the respondent nos. 2 to 7.

12) Before deciding the said point, it would be relevant to mentioned herein that in respect of the State of Assam, there exists a scheme for granting compensation to the victims of electrical accidents, which was framed under the Electricity Act, 2003 by exercise of power under Section 181(1) read with Section 57(2) and Section 57(3) of the said Act. The recent scheme in force was by virtue of a notification dated 05.08.2019, which was published in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary dated 09.08.2019 and called as AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019. As per entry no. 1 of Schedule-B thereto the compensation payable for loss of human life as a result of an electrical accident is Rs.4.00 lakh per person. The provisions of Regulation 5 thereof is as follows:-

Page No.# 14/17

"Liability for compensation:

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law in force, the licensee/ generating company including CPP shall be liable to pay compensation as specified in these Regulations to the person affected or his dependents for loss of animal or human lives or injury to human beings and animals in consequence of any electrical accident, provided the electrical accident is attributable to the fault/ negligence of the licensee/ generating company/ CPP.

Provided that if the loss of human life is due to suicide or homicide or the injury to the human being is due to an attempt to commit suicide or homicide, the licensee/ generating company/ CPP shall not be liable to pay any compensation for the same under these Regulations."

13) In the present case in hand, the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Bilasipara Electrical Sub-Division (respondent no. 7), in his inquiry report dated 06.07.2015 had mentioned that "One number of 11 KV disc insulator of the double pole structure of 16KVA transformer of village- Tokrabandha got punctured and broken. The 11 KV line conductor snapped and fallen on LT conductors, LT conductor got induced with high voltage and burnt service lines and equipments of many consumers ...." The similarly worded finding is recorded in the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report dated 29.10.2020 authored by the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam, who is authorised under the provisions of Section 161 and 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to make enquiry of all accidents involving electricity energy. The finding regarding contravention is at para 12 of his report, which reads as follows - " 12. Contravention: From the facts and circumstances leading to the accident it appears that there occurred non-compliance of regulation 12(1) & 69(3) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 on part of the owner of the overhead line that is the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) ." The said report was brought on Page No.# 15/17

record by the respondent no. 8 by filing affidavit-in-opposition on 05.03.2021. The respondent nos. 2 to 7 had filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 30.04.2021. However, the said respondents have nowhere disputed the correctness of the enquiry reports of the respondent nos. 7 and 8. Thus, absence of any challenge to the said two enquiry reports is deemed to be an admission by the respondent nos. 2 to 7 regarding the correctness of the said two enquiry reports by applying the doctrine of non- traverse. Thus, from the report of the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam (Annexure A to the affidavit-in- opposition of respondent no. 8), the inevitable conclusion that can be drawn is that the respondent nos. 2 to 7 were guilty on account of non-compliance of regulation 12(1) & 69(3) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 . Therefore, there would be no bar for the Court to award statutory compensation as provided in the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019.

14) The Court is of the considered opinion that a mere denial of and/or disputing the accident would not make the issue involved in the writ petition a disputed question of fact. In this case, without going through elaborate pleadings and evidence, the herein before two enquiry reports, viz., (i) Enquiry report of the respondent no. 7 dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure-3 of the writ petition); and (ii) enquiry report dated 29.10.2020 of the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Assam (Annexure A to the affidavit-in- opposition of respondent no. 8) are testimony of the fact that there was negligence on part of the APDCL and that there is total absence of any record that there was any safety device in place to prevent such an accident, which Page No.# 16/17

failed because of any act of God. Therefore, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would have power to award compensation under the facts and circumstances of this case.

15) Therefore, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 7 have no application in this case. Nonetheless, the said cited decisions have been appreciated and distinguished on facts.

16) The respondent nos. 2 to 7 have not been able to demonstrate that in this case any of the seven exceptions formulated by case laws to the doctrine of strict liability is present. In this regard, we may refer to para 10 and 11 of the case of Shail Kumari (supra), where it has been observed that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Charan Lal Saha v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613 and the Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, (1987) 3 SCC 234 had followed with approval the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher (supra).

17) Therefore, in view of the strict liability on account of death of a human being i.e. 18 year old son of the petitioner, the petitioner is found entitled to compensation. This writ petition stands allowed. In terms of entry no. 1 in Schedule B of the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019, the quantum of compensation is assessed at Rs.4,00,000/-. The respondent nos. 2 to 7 shall make payment of the said compensation to the Page No.# 17/17

petitioner within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of this order upon the Sub Divisional Engineer, Bilasipara Electrical Sub Division (respondent no. 3) along with bank details to enable transfer of money through RTGS or net-banking. It is further provided that on failure of the respondent nos. 2 to 7 to pay compensation within the time allowed, the compensation would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order till recovery.

18)            There shall be no order as to cost.



                                                            JUDGE



Comparing Assistant