Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 16 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010069872021
2025:GAU-AS:7898
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2735/2021
NUR NEHAR AND ANR
W/O- SAIFUL ALOM, R/O- VILL- NAYAPARA, P.O. AND P.S. KRISHNAI-
783126, DIST.- GOALPARA (ASSAM)
2: SAIFUL ALOM
S/O- KALAM SHEIKH
R/O- VILL- NAYAPARA
P.O. AND P.S. KRISHNAI- 783126
DIST.- GOALPARA (ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, POWER DEPTT.,
DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BIJULI BHAWAN
GHY-1 (ASSAM)
PIN- 781001
3:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BIJULI BHAWAN
GHY-01
4:THE S.D.O (ELECTRICAL)
DAMRA ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL
DUDHNAI- 783124 (ASSAM)
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
APDCL
BHALUKDUBI
Page No.# 2/6
GOALPARA
P.O. AND DIST.- GOALPARA- 783101 (ASSAM)
6:THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR/INSPECTORS
ASSAM INSPECTORATE OF ELECTRICITY
WEST END BLOCK
1ST FLOOR
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GHY-0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R AGARWALA, MR A AGARWALA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, APDCL
BEFORE
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Advocate for the petitioners : Shri A.R. Agarwala
Advocate for the respondent : Shri SS Roy, G.A.- Assam
Shri B. Das, SC-APDCL.
Date of hearing : 16.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 16.06.2025
Judgment & Order
Heard Shri AR Agarwala, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also
heard Shri SS Roy, learned State Counsel and Shri B. Das, learned Standing
Counsel, APDCL.
2. Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the
learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at
the admission stage itself.
3. As per the facts projected, the minor daughter of the petitioners had
Page No.# 3/6
suffered from electrical burn injuries leading to amputation of her right leg.
It has been alleged that the accident had taken place because of
negligence on the part of APDCL as live electrical wires were on the road
side without any safety measures.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a police
case was registered being Krishnai PS Case No. 125/2019 under Sections
420/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to GR Case No.
1215/2019. Further, notice under Section 80 of the CPC was also issued to
the respondent authorities for payment of compensation which was not
done. He further submits that from the affidavits exchanged, it appears that
a report has been furnished by the Dy. Chief Electrical Inspector,
Government of Assam on 03.07.2023 which substantiates the claim made
by the petitioners.
5. Shri Bhargav Das, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL has fairly
submitted that the aspect of negligence was the subject matter of
investigation made by the Electrical Inspector and in this case, the Dy. Chief
Electrical Inspector, vide the aforesaid report dated 03.07.2023 has come to
a finding that the accident had occasioned due to negligence of the APDCL.
6. The learned Standing Counsel has also placed on record the OM
dated 07.11.2019 of the APDCL by which the quantum has been fixed on
different segments as compensation for various segments due to
electrocution. He has also placed on record the AERC (Compensation to
Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019 which has been
formulated in terms of Section 53 of the Electricity Act, 2003. On the aspect
of quantum, he has pointed out that Rs.4(four) lacs is the amount
prescribed for permanent total disablement as per the list of injuries which
Page No.# 4/6
have been mentioned in Schedule-A of the concerned Regulation.
7. Shri Roy, learned State Counsel has submitted that since the report
has been furnished by the Dy. Chief Electrical Inspector, appropriate orders
may be passed in accordance with law.
8. Shri Agarwala, learned counsel for the petitioners has however
submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh Vs. Naval Kumar reported in (2017) 3 SCC 115,
had granted compensation of Rs.90(ninety) lacs. He has also placed
reliance on a judgment of Zothanpuia (Minor) Vs. The Secretary,
Power & Electricity Department, Government of Mizoram reported
in 2020 (3) GLT 85 wherein an amount of Rs.25 (twenty five) lacs has
been granted. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Assam Power
Distribution Company Ltd. Vs. District legal Services Authorities
reported in (2023) 5 GLT 427 wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court
had directed payment of interest on the stipulated time.
9. The aforesaid contentions have been duly considered. In the instant
case, however the Office Memorandum dated 07.11.2019 which was
existing at the time of institution of the writ petition is not the subject
matter of challenge. The OM lays down a prescribed amount for a different
kind of eventualities and in case of such permanent total disablement, the
amount prescribed is Rs.4(four) lacs.
10. The case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertains to State of Himachal
Pradesh and it is not discernible from the judgment regarding existence of
any similar OM. Similarly, in the case of Zothanpuia (Minor) (supra) the
same pertains to the State of Mizoram where no such OM is applicable
Page No.# 5/6
whereas the instant case is pertaining to the State of Assam in which the
OM dated 07.11.2019 is applicable.
11. Coming to the case of APDCL (supra), this Court has noticed that
the said writ petition was preferred by the APDCL against an order passed
by the District Legal Services Authority whereby an amount of Rs.5(five)
lacs was directed to be paid with 6% interest. This Court has however
interfered with the said direction by holding that the amount of
compensation entitled would be Rs.4(four) lacs as prescribed by the OM.
However, interest @ 12% was granted from the date of the accident.
12. On a perusal of the report of the Dy. Chief Electrical Inspector dated
03.07.2023, it becomes clear that there was no contributory negligence for
the child in question in the accident concerned and rather the report clearly
states that the 11 K.V. line was not tripped due to absence of circuit
breaker and other safety equipments and further the overhead lines were
not earthen permanently and efficiently. Therefore, the negligence of the
APDCL stands prima facie established which leads to a consequence that
the petitioners would be entitled to the compensation.
13. In the opinion of this Court in absence of any challenge to the Office
Memorandum dated 07.11.2019, the same would hold the field, as per
which, the amount is prescribed as Rs.4(four) lacs. However, as held by this
Court in the case of APDCL (supra), simple interest @ 12% is also directed
to be granted from the date of the accident.
14. It is accordingly directed that the prescribed compensation amount
of Rs.4(four) lacs along with simple interest @ 12% from the date of the
accident be paid to the petitioners by the respondents - APDCL. Such
Page No.# 6/6
payment be made within a period of 2(months) from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated
above.
16. No order as to cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
