SYNOPSIS : The supreme court ruled that the Electricity Board cannot be held liable for the death resulting from voluntary act of touching a live electric wire.
Being the leaders and office bearers of actor Ajith Fans Association Syed Mohammed and Najimudeen are aged about 18 years were fixing a tin sheet banner in the second floor of the building owned by Abdul and got in contact with hanging live electrical wire and died due to electrocution.
FIR was registered by the Kaliyakkavilai Police Station in Crime No.567 of 2002 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
The parents of the syed mohamed has writ petition against the tamilnadu electricity board seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakh alleging that the live electrical wire has not been maintained properly, which results in the death of their son.
The learned Single Judge had held that after referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the age and notional income of the deceased fixed compensation and apportioned between the petitioners to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively.
The principle of strict liability as established in Rylands versus Fletcher was erroneously applied by the Single learned Judge, which does not apply to the present case. According to the FIR, voluntary action of the deceased Syed Mohammed has caused the electrocution and the writ petitioners had not proved any negligence on the part of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in respect of maintaining the electrical line.
The learned counsel stated that the impugned judgment of writ petition is contrary to the law settled by this Court in the case of SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., and others Vs. Timudu Oram reported in (2005) 6 SCC 156.
The allegation of the writ petitioners that live wire was hanging unattended was the cause for the accident, is not disputed by the Electricity Board.
The learned counsel of respondent cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and others reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162 has taken the view that the Electricity Board could be fastened with the liability in a case in which the live wire got snapped and fell on the public road which was partially inundated with rainwater. Particularly, in this case appellant can avoid liability by showing that reasonable care was taken to prevent negligence but strict liability holds the appellant accountable regardless of their efforts.
Further, the learned counsel, relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Naseem Bano (Smt) Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 46, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the non-denial of the allegation is deemed to be admission of the fact, and contended that the allegation of ill maintenance of the live wire, which supports the claim of improper maintenance of hazardous live wires, making the appellant herein liable for the harm caused. Therefore, the learned Single Judge's order has to be sustained.
Judges stated that no doubt, if live electrical wire is not maintained properly would cause endanger to the life of general public. There is a statutory duty on the part of the Electricity Board to maintain the live line properly and the principle of strict liability would undoubtedly apply in case of electrocution. However, it is not a matter of presumption, there must be material to show that there was electrocution by negligence on the part of the Electricity Board to maintain the live wire. In the present case, the FIR is the contemporaneous document, which came to be registered soon after the incident. A perusal of the FIR would clearly show that on 31.10.2002, at about 9.30 PM in the night, the deceased along with his friend has carried a tin sheet to the second floor of the building owned by Abdul to fix a flex board to celebrate the film release of his favourite actor. The tin board has contacted the live wire causing electrocution and death.
The court ruled that the Electricity Board cannot be held liable for Syed Mohammed's death resulting from his voluntary act of touching a live wire while carrying a conductive tin sheet at night. Emphasizing that the Board, as a public service provider, must exercise reasonable diligence. The court concluded that the deceased's actions constituted gross negligence, absolving the Board of responsibility. Citing precedent cases Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi and Grid Corporation of Orissa v. Sukamani Das, the judgment underscored that liability requires proven negligence, not mere omission, and voluntary risk-taking by the deceased negates compensation claims.
As the High Court had exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution without properly appreciating the nature of its jurisdiction, the impugned judgments deserve to be set aside. However, in view of the long lapse of time the appellants will not recover the amounts already paid to the respondents. The court allowed the Writ Appeal, upholding the Electricity Board's payment of ₹1 lakh each to the petitioners (encashed via cheque dated 04.07.2016) and directed that the amount remain undisturbed. No costs were awarded, finalizing the matter without further liability
TOPICS