Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur vs Mr. P. Dearson on 13 July, 2022
KABORA Digitally signed
MBAM
by Item No. 10 & 11
KABORAMBAM
SANDEE SANDEEP SINGH
P SINGH
Date: 2022.07.13
17:38:35 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.A. No. 53 of 2021
with
MC (W.A.) No. 89 of 2021
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner (Power),
Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur. Pin No. - 795001.
2. The Manipur State Power Company Limited (MSPCL), represented
by Managing Director, Keishampat, Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin No. - 795001.
3. The Manipur State Power Distribution Company Limited
(MSPDCL), represented by Managing Director, Near 2nd MR,
North A.O.C., Imphal, P.O. Lamlong & P.S. Imphal, Imphal East
District, Manipur. Pin No. 795001.
4. The Deputy General Manager, MSPDCL, Ukhrul Headquarter,
P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur - 795142.
...Appellants
-Versus-
Mr. P. Dearson, aged about 36 years, s/o Late P . Bijoy,
a permanent resident of Kangkhul Khunao Village, P.O. & P.S.
Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur - 795142.
...Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
For the appellants : Mr. S. Nepolean, Government Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, Advocate
Date of Order : 13.07.2022
W.A. No. 53 of 2021 with MC (W.A.) No. 89 of 2021 Page 1
ORDER (ORAL)
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):
[1] By judgment and order dated 06.01.2020, a learned Judge of this
Court allowed W.P. (C) No. 976 of 2018, directing the respondents therein and in
particular, the Manipur State Power Company Limited (MSPCL) and the Manipur
State Power Distribution Company Limited (MSPDCL), to pay to the writ petitioner
a sum of ₹. 10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of his three-year old son.
Aggrieved thereby, the State of Manipur, the MSPCL, the MSPDCL and its
Director, the respondents in the writ petition, are in appeal.
[2] Heard Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, appearing
for the appellants; and Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel, appearing for the
respondent/writ petitioner.
[3] The respondent's son, P. Somirin, aged about three years, was
electrocuted on 24.08.2016 at around 12:00 noon when he came in contact with
a live transformer installed near Kangkhul Khunou Primary School, where he was
studying in Class KG-I. The representations made by the respondent and the
Village Authority for grant of compensatory relief yielded no result, leading to the
filing of the subject writ petition. His prayer therein was for compensation of
₹. 42,00,000/- with interest thereon from the date of the incident.
[4] An affidavit-in-opposition was filed in the writ petition by the
Managing Director, MSPDCL. Therein, he stated that the child had entered the
kacha-fenced area and touched the live 11KV electrical equipment installed
therein, resulting in his electrocution. He claimed that there was no negligence on
W.A. No. 53 of 2021 with MC (W.A.) No. 89 of 2021 Page 2
the part of the MSPDCL. According to him, this distribution transformer was
installed at Kangkhui Khunou in August, 2016, after the earlier one got burnt. It
was stated to have been installed at a steep place behind the school at the
request of the Village Authority. He further stated that the new distribution
transformer was provided with kacha fencing with MS angle, wood and barbed
wire, but the same could not be upgraded due to acute shortage of funds. He
then cited the financial particulars of the MSPDCL and claimed that it was not in a
position to operate independently and was being run with the State Government's
grant-in-aid. He concluded by stating that there was no negligence on the part of
the MSPDCL and that the fatal accident occurred due to the boy's ignorance.
[5] Upon considering the matter, the learned Judge placed reliance on
caselaw, including the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Somi Kamkara
& Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 894 of 2017 decided on
11.07.2018]. In that case, the victim child had suffered amputation of his limb
due to electrocution. The learned Judge recorded that, in the case on hand, the
transformer was installed behind the school at a distance of about 25 feet. The
stand of the authorities that the transformer was kacha-fenced and that there
was no negligence on their part was also referred to but the learned Judge
doubted whether the transformer was properly fenced. The learned Judge opined
that, had it been so, a child of three years of age would not have had the
capacity to enter into the fenced area. The learned Judge accordingly held that
the child had died due to negligence on the part of the authorities. Keeping in
mind, the age of the child and other relevant factors, the learned Judge awarded
₹. 10,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation for the death of his young son.
W.A. No. 53 of 2021 with MC (W.A.) No. 89 of 2021 Page 3
[6] As this appeal turns upon the core question as to whether there was
negligence on the part of the MSPDCL, this Court asked both sides to file
photographs of the transformer which had caused the death of the child. In fact,
a black and white photograph was already on record but colour photographs were
directed to be furnished for the purpose of clarity.
[7] Thereupon, Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel, produced a
colour photocopy of the colour photograph of the transformer. It demonstrates
that the transformer was installed on the ground on a hillside with barbed-wire
fencing. Ordinarily, transformers would not be installed at the ground level and
concrete pedestals are raised for the purpose of installing transformers at a
height, so as to make them inaccessible to passersby. That was not done in the
case on hand. Further, the fencing provided around the transformer is seen to be
wholly inadequate, both in terms of affording protection and in terms of keeping
people out. Two poles were erected on either side of the transformer and a small
wooden pole was installed in front of it. The barbed-wire was loosely wound
around these poles. The photograph clearly discloses that sufficient distance was
not even maintained so as to properly isolate the transformer installed within the
fenced area falling between these poles. On the other hand, the picture shows
that a child can easily reach through the barbed-wire and touch the transformer
directly. When the MSPDCL was aware of the fact that it was installing this
dangerous live electrical equipment in such close proximity to a school, the least
that was expected of it was to maintain proper fencing around the transformer,
so that it would not be easily accessible to innocent young children. Acute
shortage of funds is no reason to avoid minimum standards of fencing around a
W.A. No. 53 of 2021 with MC (W.A.) No. 89 of 2021 Page 4
live transformer installed on the ground in an area where young children would
be passing by.
[8] Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, did not file any
photographs indicating to the contrary in so far as the subject transformer is
concerned. However, he placed reliance on Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs.
Sumathi and others [(2000) 4 SCC 543] in support of his contention that no
liability would attach to the appellants. That was a case where legal heirs of
persons who died due to electrocution filed writ petitions claiming compensation.
In that context, the Supreme Court held that if there are disputed questions of
fact and there is clear denial of tortious liability, the remedy under Article 226 of
the Constitution may not be proper. The Supreme Court however added the
caveat that where there is negligence, on the face of it, and also infringement of
Article 21, there is no bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the
right to life is one of the basic human rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution. As the finding of this Court, presently, is that there was manifest
negligence on the part of the MSPDCL in installing and fencing the transformer in
question, this judgment is of no avail to the authorities.
[9] Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, would further state
that the decision of this Court in Somi Kamkara (supra) was challenged before
the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 31713 of 2018 and that the
judgment passed by this Court has been stayed, vide order dated 06.12.2018
passed therein. However, it may be noted that there was no clear-cut finding of
negligence attributed to the authorities in that case and the victim, who was a
six-year old, was stated to have climbed over the wooden gate/fence provided
W.A. No. 53 of 2021 with MC (W.A.) No. 89 of 2021 Page 5
around the transformer and touched the live wire. However, in the case on hand,
this Court finds that the MSPDCL was utterly careless and negligent in the manner
in which it installed the subject transformer in close proximity to a school, without
even providing proper fencing around it.
[10] Owing to the negligence and carelessness of the MSPDCL, a young
child of three years lost his life, causing untold grief and misery to his parents.
Award of monetary compensation can only go to an extent to assuage the
suffering caused to the parents by the untimely demise of their young son.
We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
MC (W.A.) No. 89 of 2021 shall also stand dismissed.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
W.A. No. 53 of 2021 with MC (W.A.) No. 89 of 2021 Page 6
