Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajitpal Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-14040-2021
Judgment reserved on : 29.08.2024
Judgment pronounced on: 04.09.2024
AJITPAL KAUR AND OTHERS ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Rohit Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Niharika Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. The prayer in the present petition is for directing the respondent
authorities to pay compensation on account of death caused due to
electrocution of deceased Kuldeep Singh husband of the Petitioner No. 1,
father of Petitioner No. 2 and son of Petitioner No. 3 and 4 to the tune of Rs.
50 Lac along with interest @ 18 percent per annum w.e.f 29.06.2017.
Facts of the case:
2. The deceased Kuldeep Singh was statedly working as a
carpenter at his shop situated in Bathinda. He was the sole earning member
of his family comprising of the present petitioners. On 29.06.2017, the
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
deceased Kuldeep Singh went to check the waterlogging in his shop due to
heavy rainfall. On his way back from the shop at around 07:00 AM, the
deceased Kuldeep Singh got electrocuted from the electricity current
flowing/leaking from the nearby electricity pole into the accumulated water
on the road near Neem Wala Chowk.
3. People from the nearby area gathered at the spot seeing the
deceased Kuldeep Singh lying unconscious in the pool of water. They were
unable to pull the deceased away from the spot of incident as there was still
a flow/leakage of electricity into the pool of water.
4. With the assistance from an NGO namely Sahara Welfare
Society, an ambulance was sent to the place of incident and electricity
supply to the pole was shut down to facilitate evacuation of the deceased for
medical help.
5. The body of Kuldeep Singh was taken to Civil Hospital,
Bathinda, where he was declared dead and thereafter the body was shifted to
mortuary. Post-Mortem was conducted in the abovementioned hospital
wherein the cause of death was mentioned as heart failure. The aforesaid
Post Mortem report dated 29/06/2017 and death certificate dated 03/07/2017
is annexed herewith as Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 respectively.
6. On the day of incident, a DDR No. 014 dated 29/06/2017 was
recorded on the statement of Petitioner No.4 Gurdev Singh, father of the
petitioner, wherein all the aforesaid facts were mentioned tersely.
7. After the incident, an ex-gratia amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was
paid to the petitioners herein from the Chief Minister Relief Fund of Punjab
on the recommendation letter of the Deputy Commissioner Bhatinda. The
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
said recommendation letter dated 03/07/2017 is annexed herewith as
Annexure P5.
8. An application before the District Collector, Bathinda was filed
under Section 6 of the Public Utility Insurance Act, 1991 on 19/09/2017
claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from the respondent authorities
(Annexure P6). The reply to the said application was filed by the respondent
authorities on 14/11/2017 (Annexure P7). The replication by the petitioners
was filed on 05/12/2017 (Annexure P8).
9. In pursuance of the aforesaid application a Factual Inquiry
Report was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda vide letter
dated 23/10/2018 (Annexure P9) to the District Collector, Bathinda for
adjudication of the claim-application of the petitioner. The said report
concluded that the deceased Kuldeep Singh died due to heart attack and
submitted that the reason of the heart attack due to electrocution cannot be
ruled out. A detailed inquiry was also conducted by the District Collector,
Bathinda wherein witnesses of the claimants and respondents authorities
were examined and cross-examined. The District Collector relied on the
Factual Inquiry Report submitted by the SDM, Bathinda while also
considering the statement of the witnesses and dependents of the deceased
who submitted that the deceased was not suffering from any disease or was
undergoing any medical treatment. On the basis of the inquiry, the District
Collector, Bathinda partially accepted the claim of the petitioners and made
an award of Rs. 25,000/- dated 16/02/2021 (Annexure P10) to the claimants
due to the maximum limit imposed by Section 3 of the Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991 read with the annexed schedule in the act. Feeling
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
aggrieved of inadequate compensation, the present writ petition has been
filed.
10. The PSPCL in its reply has not disputed the grant of the ex-
gratia amount of Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioners or the award under the Public
Liability Insurance Act, 1991 but have disputed and denied about the death
having been caused by electrocution. It is contended that the above said
amount has been given as a financial assistance to the family in penury and
is not acknowledgment of the liability or the manner of accident. Reference
is made to the Post Mortem report to contend that death is due to cardiac
failure and there is no link established that the cardiac arrest was due to
electrocution. Hence, being prima-facie a natural death and in the absence
of direct proximity of death with electrocution, liability cannot be fastened
against the distribution licensee. The area where death took place is a
densely populated commercial area and there has been no complaint of any
other person having suffered any electrocution. Inspection of the spot was
conducted by the personnel of the licensee and no negligence or signs of live
wire could be determined and there was no leakage. The officials themselves
stood in the accumulated rain water with current flowing, but no leakage or
discharge of current was detected. A detailed narrative report was submitted
by the Er. Mandeep Singh and others who were part of the team. It was also
reported that the feeder did not trip even once despite being equipped with
earth-cum-protective system which would have been a case if there was
some earthing or short circuiting or leakage of current.
Arguments On Behalf Of Petitioners:
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
11. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners contend that the
demise of the deceased Kuldeep Singh occurred due to the gross negligence
on the part of the respondent authorities and the impugned inaction of the
respondent authorities of not paying the compensation claimed by the
petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unfair.
12. It is contended that under Rule 29, 44, 45 & 46 of the
Electricity Rules, 1956 the respondent authorities have a statutory duty to
ensure safety of electricity supply lines so that no harm is caused to any
human or animal life. And through their negligence they have caused gross
breach of their statutory duty.
13. Reliance is placed on the case of Ruby & Ors. v. State Of
Haryana & Ors reported as 2019 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 928 (Annexure P12)
wherein this court has upheld the liability of the power supply company to
pay compensation to any person who died due to electrocution and had
awarded adequate compensation to the dependents of the deceased.
14. It is submitted that the Post-Mortem report prepared by Civil
Hospital, Bathinda mentions the reason of death as heart failure. But the
Factual Inquiry Report submitted by the SDM, Bathinda clearly mentions
that it cannot be denied that the reason of heart failure was electrocution.
15. The counsel vehemently contends that a detailed inquiry into
the matter was also conducted by the District Collector, who accepted the
findings of the Factual Inquiry Report and held that it cannot be denied that
the cause of the heart failure was electrocution and awarded Rs. 25,000/- to
the dependents of the petitioner vide award dated 16/02/2021.
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
16. The counsel contends that an ex-gratia amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-
was granted from the Chief Minister Relief Fund of Punjab on
recommendation by the Deputy Commissioner, which in itself is a clear
admission of the fact that the deceased died due to heart failure caused by
electrocution as a result of negligence of the responded authorities and not
due to natural reasons as he was a healthy person as per the statement given
by the dependents of the deceased Kuldeep Singh to various authorities.
17. The counsel places reliance on the case of "Deepak Sharma &
Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.", CWP 12894 of 2023 decided on
09/05/2024 wherein this court awarded an interim compensation of Rs.
5,00,000/- to the petitioners on account of death of their son due to
electrocution by coming in contact with a heavy electricity line. He further
mentions that in the case of "Smt. Nilabeti Behera @ Lalita Behera v. State
Of Orissa & Ors." reported as 1993 AIR (SC) 1960 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the State is compelled to provide compensation as a
remedy in public law and cannot escape it's liability for violation of
fundamental rights under the guise of sovereign immunity.
18. The counsel also relies on the case of "UP State Electricity
Board & Anr. v. District Magistrate, Dehradun" reported as 1998 AIR
(Allahabad) 1 wherein the Allahabad high court held that electricity is a
hazardous substance and that Section 3(2) of the Public Liability Insurance
Act, 1991 places a strict liability in cases of accidents caused due to
hazardous substance.
Arguments On Behalf Of Respondents:
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
19. Controverting the submissions made above, learned counsel on
behalf of respondents contends that the petitioner has not brought forth all
the relevant facts and suppressed material pertaining to the case and that the
petitioners have already received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- as
compensation from the State Government and the District Collector
respectively and the same is not an admission or acknowledgment of a
liability. The documentary evidence does not support the case of the
petitioner.
20. It is submitted by placing reliance on the post-mortem report
that the deceased Kuldeep Singh died of natural causes i.e. due to heart
attack and not due to electrocution. Hence, the respondent authorities are not
liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
21. Further, reliance is placed on the averments contained in the
written statement to contend that on the day of the accident, there were no
other complaints regarding leakage of current from the pole in question and
that the site of accident is a densely populated area with heavy footfall and
traffic and that some other persons may also have received the electric
shocks or must have known about the same. Neither were there any
complaints received for faulty wire or leakage of current through the pole in
question nor were there any other incidents of electric shock or
electrocution.
22. The counsel argues that a thorough inspection was done by the
personnel of the respondent authorities immediately after the sad demise of
the deceased. Assistant Engineer A.E Bhagta and Junior Engineer J.E.
Resham Singh visited the site and conducted inspection of the wires and the
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
pole as well as any possibility of leakage of electricity. In the narrative
report submitted by them they have stated that immediately after the
intimation of the accident, they reached the spot of accident and got line
patrolling conducted and found no evidence of electricity flow/leakage in the
accumulated water. In addition they also checked the flow/leakage of
electricity by standing in the water after resuming the electricity supply and
concluded that there was no current/leakage in it.
23. Further, the counsel argues that the system is equipped with
Earth cum Protective System, which automatically switches off the electric
supply in the case of anyone coming in contact with a live electric wire. And
that the system did not even trip once indicating the fact that the deceased
did not die of electrocution.
24. The counsel places reliance on the case of Chairman, Grid
Corporation Of Orrisa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das & Ors reported as (1999) 7
SCC 298 wherein the Supreme Court while dismissing the catena of appeals
observed that in such cases, the appellants deserve 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 petitioner. A death could not be
presumed to have been caused by negligence and due to electrocution
merely on occurrence of the death. The court also held that 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.
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
25. The counsel contends that since the deceased had not died in
a manner as stated by the petitioner which is also evident from the post
mortem report which states the cause of death as heart failure and not
electrocution, the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be
dismissed.
26. No other arguments were advanced/have been raised by the
counsel for the parties and no further judgments were relied upon.
Consideration:
27. I have heard both the parties and have gone through
documents on record with their able assistance.
28. The claim of the petitioners as put forth by their counsel is
based on the statements given by the dependents of the deceased that he
was a healthy person and not suffering from any disease and that the
accumulative findings of the Factual Inquiry Report by the SDM,
Bhatinda, the Detailed Inquiry conducted by the District Collector,
Bhatinda conclude that the cause of heart attack cannot be ruled out to be
due to electrocution. Also, the grant of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-
from the Chief Minister Relief Fund of Punjab, on recommendation by
the District Commissioner, is held as an admission of the fact that the
deceased died due to heart failure caused by electrocution, as a result of
negligence of the responded authorities.
29. In so far as reliance on the case of Deepak Sharma & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) wherein this court awarded an interim
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioners on account of death of their
son is concerned, the same was awarded only on compassionate grounds and
without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the case. The
counsel also relied on the case of Smt. Nilabeti Behera @ Lalita Behera v.
State Of Orissa & Ors. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the State is compelled to provide compensation as a remedy in public
law and cannot escape it's liability for violation of fundamental rights under
the guise of sovereign immunity. The ratio of the judgment is not denied but
the same is not completely attractive of the facts of this case. The petitioners
have even otherwise already received a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- from
the Chief Minister Relief Fund of Punjab.
30. Further the counsel for petitioners refers to the case of UP State
Electricity Board & Anr. v. District Magistrate, Dehradun (supra) wherein
the Allahabad high court held that Section 3(2) of the Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991 places a strict liability in cases of accidents caused due
to hazardous substance. In the case at hand, the petitioners have already
availed this remedy and have received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as a
compensation from the District Collector due to the maximum limit imposed
by Section 3 of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 read with the
annexed schedule in the act.
31. However, contradicting the claims of the petitioner, the counsel
for the respondent contends that the post mortem report of the deceased
clearly states that the cause of death is due to heart attack only which is a
natural cause of demise and that nowhere in the post mortem report it is
mentioned that the death was caused due to electrocution. He also places
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
reliance on the narrative report submitted by the employees of the
respondent authorities wherein they have mentioned that on inspection no
issue of flow/leakage of electricity into the accumulated pool of water was
found and that the electricity system is equipped with Earth cum Protective
System, which automatically switches off the electric supply in the case of
anyone coming in contact with a live electric wire.
32. It is also noticed that even though the reply was filed by the
respondents in September, 2022, however, no rejoinder was filed denying
the specific objection of the respondents. Even the report filed with the reply
was not disputed. Besides, the conclusion drawn about the proximity
between cause of death and electrocution are prima facie conjectural rather
than on unimpeachable evidence. The said aspect needs to be ascertained
after leading evidence and determining the cause as well as the appropriate
compensation. A mere grant of financial assistance cannot be deemed as
acknowledgment of a liability and admission of negligence.
33. The present petition hence raises disputed question of facts as to
the cause of death of the deceased and whether the heart failure happened
due to natural causes or was it induced due to the incident of electrocution.
Apart therefrom, an additional issue pertaining to the determination of
negligence on the part of the respondent authorities thereon shall also arise.
The High Court, thus, would not be an appropriate Forum to adjudicate upon
the disputed questions of fact under Article 226 of the constitution as it
requires leading of evidence and examination of witnesses. Besides,
compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.25 lakh already stands released under
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115941
different proceedings in favour of the petitioners, which is in the nature of an
interim relief.
34. The present petition is accordingly dismissed at this stage with
the liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to the appropriate alternative
remedy available to them, in accordance of law for seeking compensation on
account of death of Kuldeep Singh, if so advised.
35. In the event of the petitioners seeking such remedy, the period
spent in pursuing these proceedings should be considered sympathetically
while construing limitation.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2024 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
