Allahabad High Court Awards ₹28 Lakh Compensation To Man Who Lost Both Arms From Electrocution As A Child In 1997
The Allahabad High Court has recently awarded a compensation of Rs. 27.90 lakhs to a man who lost both arms on being electrocuted by a transformer when he was a child, in 1997. The Court held that the transformer was installed just outside the Primary School where the appellant studied and being aware that anyone could come in contact with the transformer, no action was taken by the...
The Allahabad High Court has recently awarded a compensation of Rs. 27.90 lakhs to a man who lost both arms on being electrocuted by a transformer when he was a child, in 1997.
The Court held that the transformer was installed just outside the Primary School where the appellant studied and being aware that anyone could come in contact with the transformer, no action was taken by the electricity department to prevent accidents.
Justice Sandeep Jain held,
“From the evidence on record it is proved that even after the accident, the defendant has not taken any steps to avoid any such accident in future, which shows the careless and negligent attitude of the defendant towards the general public. It is also apparent that it is not expected from a child of 7 years of age to be aware of the imminent danger from a transformer, as such, the defendant cannot take the plea of negligence on the part of the plaintiff, for avoiding its tortious liability.”
Appellant was aged 7, studying at a junior high school in Agra when he came in contact with the transformer which was located in an open area not more than 3 feet away from the school gate. In the suit for compensation filed by the appellant through his guardian, it was pleaded that despite requests from the locals to properly fence the transformer, the same was not done by the authorities.
Since appellant's both hands and arms were severely burnt, they had to be amputated, leaving him permanently disabled. Plaintiff, in his suit, had claimed compensation of Rs. 59.47 lakhs and 2% per month interest.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit on grounds that the appellant had failed to prove his case. It held that the accident happened on 1st March but was reported to police on 14th March. Plaintiff's mother was not an eyewitness, and the plaintiff himself was never examined in the case. It was held that the other witnesses had proved that the negligence of the plaintiff who had himself touched the transformer. Lastly, it held that no notice under Section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was given.
Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, plaintiff-appellant approached the High Court.
The Court observed that the transformer was not more than 3 feet away from the school gate and had no proper fencing to avoid people from coming in contact with it accidentally. It observed that the electricity department had pleaded that the transformer was installed as per rules and regulations but there was no fencing around it.
“It is apparent that once having pleaded that the transformer was installed as per rules and regulation of the defendant, it was the bounden duty of the defendant to prove that it was indeed so. The defendant has not brought to the notice of the Court what were the relevant rules and regulation, which were to be complied while installing the transformer in the open place, outside the primary school and further, it had indeed complied with them.”
Since at no point could the electricity department prove that the transformer was fenced, the Court held that the rule of strict liability was applicable on them and the plaintiff-appellant was not required to prove that he was not negligent.
Further, the Court held that under Section 33 of the Electricity Act, the injured is only supposed to inform the authority about the incident. It held that non-supply of information as per Section 33 does not bar a suit for compensation.
Noting that due to amputation of both hands, appellant had suffered permanent disability, Justice Jain observed,
“In view of this, the plaintiff has suffered 100 % functional disability, who is completely dependent on others for his survival and daily chores. The plaintiff is unable to eat, dress up, play, his entire childhood has been spoiled, he cannot enjoy the amenities of life, his marriage prospects have vanished, his life has become miserable.”
Since the trial Court had not determined the compensation payable for an accident which occurred in 1997, the Court held that it would be a travesty to remand the case back to the Trial Court to determine the compensation after 29 years.
Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court for compensation in electrocution cases and motor vehicle accident cases, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 27.90 lakhs (26.65 lakhs after adjustment of compensation received earlier) with 6% per annum interest pendentelite.
Case Title: Pappu v. U.P. State Electricity Board Its Principal Officer