Orissa High Court
Smt. Umamani Nayak & Ors vs Ceo on 28 July, 2025
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.5875 of 2008
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
Smt. Umamani Nayak & Ors. . Petitioners
Mr. Bijay Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
CEO, TPNODL, Balasore & Ors . Opp. Parties
Mr. L.K. Moharana, Advocate for TPNODL
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate along with
Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
_____________________________________________________
Date of hearing: 09.04. 2025 | Date of Judgment : 28.07.2025
______________________________________________________
A.K. Mohapatra, J. :
1. The Petitioners who are the wife and three sons of the deceased Sanatan
Nayak, have filed the present writ petition with a prayer before this Court to
order the Opposite Parties- Electricity Distribution Company, to pay the
Petitioners compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 12 % interest per annum. It is
the plea of the Petitioners that, due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties in
properly maintaining the electric wires, deceased Sanatan Nayak, came in
contact with a snapped live wire lying on the road, which led to his death due to
electrocution. As the deceased was the sole earning member of the family, his
death has not only caused emotional pain and agony to the Petitioners but also
grave financial hardship. Therefore, the Petitioners have prayed this Court to
grant them monetary compensation as a means of respite to their financial
hardship as no quantum of monetary relief can ever compensate the untimely
loss of life of a family member.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief factual background adverted in the writ petition is that, on
06.07.2007 at around 05:30 PM, when the deceased Sanatan Nayak was going
to the market; he unknowingly came in contact with puddle of water which was
charged with electricity because a live L.T. line wire had snapped and had fallen
into the puddle of water on the road. As a result, the deceased got electrocuted
and sustained serious injuries. He was rescued by the villagers and was admitted
in the District Headquater Hospital, Balasore. However, he succumbed to his
injuries on the same evening.
3. Later on, post mortem and inquest was conducted on 07.07.2007.
Subsequently, Khantapada UDPS Case No. 24/2007 was registered to this effect
by lodging FIR under Annexure- 1 to the writ petition. After completion of
investigation, the A.S.I. Khantapada submitted the „Final Report of Unnatural or
Sudden Death Sent to Magistrate under Section- 174 of Cr.P.C.‟ under
Annexure- 4 to the writ petition, with the finding that the death of the deceased
Sanatan Nayak was caused due to electrocution as a result of snapping of live
electric L.T. lines.
4. The Petitioners had approached the Opposite Parties- Distribution
Company for grant of monetary compensation for causing death of the deceased
by their negligence, however, the Opposite Parties- Distribution Company have
not taken any step in this regard. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the
Opposite Parties- Distribution Company, the Petitioners has filed the present
writ petition with a prayer before this Court to order the Opposite Parties-
Distribution Company to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 12 % interest
per annum for causing death of the deceased due to their negligence.
5. It is pertinent to note here that, the writ petition was originally filed
against North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Odisha (hereinafter
"NESCO") as the Opposite Parties, which was the authorized company
responsible for distribution of electricity in Balasore district, at the time of death
of the deceased. However, subsequently the distribution of electricity in the
Balasore District was taken over by Tata Power Northern Odisha Distribution
Limited (hereinafter "TPNODL"). Therefore, by order of this court in I.A. No.
13555 of 2023 dated 06.08.2024, amendment to the cause title was allowed, by
impleading TPNODL as the Opposite Parties in place of NESCO.
SUBMISSION FOR PETITIONERS
6. Mr. Bijay Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners at the outset contended that, the death of Sanatan Nayak was caused
due to negligence of the Opposite Parties as because the Opposite Parties have
failed to discharge their duty of properly maintaining the L.T. electric wires in
Sergarh village, Balasore. He also submitted that the L.T. line wire in the
village snapped and fell on the road‟s pod water and charged the water. When
Sanatan Nayak was going to the market on 06.07.2007 at around 05:30 PM, he
unknowingly stepped on the charged wire as he was unable to see the snapped
wire lying on the road due to darkness. As a result, he got electrocuted and was
admitted in the District Headquarter Hospital, Balasore. He eventually
succumbed to his injuries in the same evening.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners thereafter submitted that, Khantapada
UDPS Case No. 24/2007 was registered by lodging FIR under Annexure- 1 to
the writ petition. Subsequently, post mortem and inquest proceedings was also
carried out. He appraised the Court that the Inquest Report under Annexure- 2
to the writ petition states the cause of death to be „due to electric shock‟ and the
Post Mortem Report under Annexure- 3 to the writ petition states that the
definite cause of death could not be ascertained. However, it was added in the
report that the death might be due to hemorrhage due to injury of brain and
lacerated wound of face. Thereafter, he drew the attention of the court to the
"Final Report of a case of Unnatural and Sudden Death Sent to Magistrate
under Section 174 of Cr.P.C." submitted by the ASI Khantapada P.S. under
Annexure- 4 to the writ petition and stated that the ASI in the report declares
that the cause of death of deceased is due to Electric Shock.
8. Further referring to the aforesaid report, learned counsel for the
Petitioners stated that, the ASI has reflected in the final report that upon query
being made by him about the injuries found on the body of the deceased, the
Medical Officer who conducted the Post Mortem over the dead body of the
deceased opined that the "injury can be possible due to electric shock and also
cause death of a person." Relying on finding of the Inquest Report under
Annexure- 2 to the writ petition; Post Mortem report under Annexure- 3 to the
writ petition and the Final Report under Annexure-4 to the writ petition; the
learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that there is no doubt that the death
of Sanatan Nayak was indeed caused by electrocution as the deceased
accidentally came in contact with live snapped electric wire lying on the road
and which was not visible to the naked eye.
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further contended that, the electric
L.T. lines were drawn to the Sergarh village quite long time ago. As they were
not maintained properly by the Opposite Parties- Distribution Company, the
electric wires were not strong enough to withstand the pressure of even mild
wind. He further stated that, despite of several complaints and requests by the
residents of Sergarh village, the Opposite Parties- Distribution Company having
knowledge of the foreseeable potential danger that the ill- kept electric wires
posed on the locality, did not take any steps to change the old wires. He
submitted that , due to the failure of Opposite Parties- Distribution Company in
properly discharging their duties and responsibility, an innocent man lost his life
and a family not only lost a beloved family member but also the sole
breadwinner.
10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the deceased was 54
years old and was working as a daily labourer. He was earning Rs. 2100/- per
month and was maintaining a family consisting of his wife and two sons. His
death has put the family in grave financial hardship and now it is the
responsibility of the Opposite Parties- Distribution Company to adequately
compensate the grieving family in monetary terms. In the course of the
arguments, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, brought the OERC
(Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulation, 2020 to the
notice of the court and stated that the Petitioners are entitled to compensation in
terms of the aforesaid regulation.
11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners appraised the Court that the Opposite
Parties- Distribution Company by admitting their negligence and liability, had
paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Petitioners to perform last rites of the deceased
and had assured them to pay a just and proper compensation later. However,
due to delay in such payment, the Petitioners approached the Opposite Parties-
Distribution Company several times, however, the Opposite Parties-
Distribution Company did not take any steps in this regard. Thereafter, on
06.08.2007, the Petitioners sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties-
Distribution Company under Annexure- 5 to the writ petition with a request to
pay the compensation. The aforesaid notice was duly received by the Opposite
Parties- Distribution Company on 07.08.2007 as is evident from the postal
receipts along with A/D under Anneexure-6 series to the writ petition. However,
the Opposite Parties- Distribution Company neither gave any reply to the said
notice nor paid any compensation.
12. The poor and helpless Petitioners, having no other recourse against such
inaction of the Opposite Parties- Distribution Company, have filed the present
writ petition with a prayer before the Court to order the Opposite Parties-
Distribution Company to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 12 % interest
per annum to the Petitioners.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
13. Heard Mr. Bijay Kumar Mohanty, the learned counsel for the Petitioners
and Mr. L.K. Maharana Learned Counsel for Opposite Parties- Distribution
Company. Perused the writ petition and documents annexed thereto as well as
the case laws cited.
14. It is pertinent to note that, the Opposite Parties- Distribution Company
were given several opportunities by the Court to deny the averments made and
plea taken by the Petitioners, however, the Opposite Parties have not filed any
counter affidavit although Mr. Maharana participated in the hearing and
opposed the prayer of the Petitioners. This amounts to implied admission of the
facts pleaded in the writ petition by the Opposite Parties- Distribution Company
by virtue application of the doctrine of non- traverse. Therefore, the Court
considers the plea and averments of the Petitioners as narrated in the writ
petition supported by documents as annexures. Some of the documents are
public documents.
15. After analysis of the admitted facts present before this court, the Court is
of the considered view that there is ample material on record in the form of
Inquest Report under Annexure- 2, Post Mortem Report under Annexure-3 to
the writ petition and Final Report under Annexure-3 writ petition, to hold that
the death of the deceased Sanatak Nayak was caused due to electrocution. Such
documents being public documents are admissible in evidence.
16. In light of the above observation, the court finds it beneficial to discuss
the principle of strict liability under the "law of tort". The principle of strict
liability as propounded in the famous case of Ryland v. Fletcher, reported in
1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330, lays down that-
"the person who, for his own purpose, 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 so he is
prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequence of its escape."
Therefore, rule of strict liability essentially attaches the liability on the
undertakers of the hazardous activities, to compensate for damages caused,
irrespective of any carelessness on their part. The basis of liability is the
foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of the activities.
17. The Apex Court as well as this Court has consistently held the electricity
distribution companies strictly liable for any loss of life, limb or property
resulting due to the supply and distribution of electricity and has awarded
compensation to the victims and their families. In the case of M.P. Electricity
Board v. Shail Kumari and others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162, by applying
the rule of strict liability, Apex Court awarded compensation to the widow and
dependants of the deceased, who died due to electrocution by coming in contact
with a snapped live electric wire lying on the road. The court made the
following observation thus,
"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 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."
18. Similarly, in the case of Dusmanta Samal v. State of Orissa arising out
of W.P.(C) No. 14548 of 2016, a coordinate bench of this Court by applying the
principle of strict liability, awarded compensation to the father of the deceased
who died due to electrocution by coming in contact with a charged electric pole
which was maintained by the Opposite Party. The court held that-
"23. Keeping in view the precedents cited above, the
materials placed on record and the observation made, the
court is of the considered view that, the prayer made by the
Petitioners is sustainable. The opposite parties are engaged
in a hazardous activity, and they will be strictly liable for the
loss of life that had occurred due to their undertaken activity.
The judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution and the
protector of fundamental rights, has never shied away from
trying to make good of what is lost in monetary terms. It is
universal truth that loss of human life can never be
compensated by bringing back a dead young man to life,
however, the bereaved family can be compensated in
monetary terms for the loss of income sustained by such
family due to untimely death of a young member of the
family."
CONCLUSION
19. Therefore, in the light of the arguments advanced, case laws cited and the
admitted fact that the death was caused due to electrocution by coming in
contact of a snapped L.T. line electric wire lying on the road and the fact that
the Opposite Parties- Distribution company had the statutory responsibility of
distribution and supply of electricity in the locality, the court is of the
considered view that by application of the principle of strict liability, the
Opposite Parties- Distribution Company are strictly liable for the death of
deceased and are liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.
20. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the
Petitioners has brought the „OERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical
Accidents) Regulations, 2020‟ which came into force on 30.05.2020, to the
notice of the court. But the aforesaid regulation won‟t apply to the present case
as the death occurred in the year 2007. However, the court deems it proper to
refer to the scale of compensation laid down in the aforesaid regulation. As per
regulation 5 of the aforesaid regulations, the quantum of compensation payable
in the event of a loss of human life has been fixed to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs) per person. As such, keeping in view the aforesaid
regulation and keeping in view the prayer made in the writ petition particularly
with regard to the quantum of compensation, this Court deems it proper to direct
the Opposite Parties to pay an interim compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees
Two lakhs) to the Petitioners within a period of two months from the date of
this judgement. The aforesaid shall carry interest @8% from the date the
incident took place till payment of such amount as directed hereinabove. In the
event the payment is made after expiry of the aforesaid time stipulation, the
compensation amount shall carry interest @12% till the date of actual payment
is made to the Petitioners. Further, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to pursue
other suitable remedies in the common law forum for higher compensation, if so
advised.
21. Writ petition stands disposed of in favor of the Petitioners. However,
there shall be no orders as to cost.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 28th July, 2025/ S.K. Rout, Jr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
