The learned Single Judge of the High Court adverted to Section 68 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short "the Act") and Rule 91 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 (for short "the Rules") which lay down the procedure of safety and protective devices to be provided for overhead electric lines erected over any part of the street or public place or any consumer's premises and mandate that those shall be protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court further referred to Rules 29, 44 and 46 of the Rules which are statutory in nature which require the electricity authorities to conduct periodical inspection of the lines maintained by them and to take all such safety measures to prevent accident and maintain the lines in such a manner that life and property of the general public is protected. The learned Single Judge has considered the position of law declared by this Court in catena of cases for awarding compensation, particularly, the electrocution cases, and held the principle of "strict liability" and consequential negligence in awarding compensation in favour of the claimant against the State Electricity Board. This Court and the various High Courts such as High Courts of Madras, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Kerala and Gujarat have awarded compensation to the victims of electrocution in exercise of the extraordinary and appellate jurisdiction, and have held that the Electricity Board Supply Companies are duty bound to take precautionary measures under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has held the electricity authority - the first respondent to be liable to pay the compensation to the claimant irrespective of the fact that the harm could have been avoided by the consumer by taking precautionary measures.
Supreme Court of India
Raman vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... on 17 December, 2014
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan
REPORTABLE
Print Page
