Electrocution Death | Compensation Can't Be Denied To Claimants Merely Because Claim Made After Limitation Period: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the claimants of a person who died by electrocution cannot be deprived of compensation only because they filed the claim petition after expiry of limitation period, more so when negligence on the part of the electricity department is palpable.While fixing responsibility of the department, the Division Bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held –“When such death has occurred due to electrocution and the statement of PW-1 Rameshwari and PW-2 Parmeshwar would show that the deceased came into contact of the live electric wire and was electrocuted. In absence of any other evidence, the same would be acceptable, which would lead to draw the analogy of strict liability.”Case BackgroundIn the morning hours of 22.02.2014, the deceased had gone to answer the call of nature when he came in contact with a scattered live-electric wire which had fallen down on the ground because of heavy rains and storm. Due to such contact, he was electrocuted and sustained fatal injuries. Later, he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition after almost five years in 2019 claiming a compensation amount of twenty-five lakhs rupees. The same was opposed to by the electricity department which alleged that the incident happened due to negligence of the deceased and also, it asserted that as the claim petition was filed after passage of five years, it is barred by limitation.The trial Court held that the death of the deceased did not occur due to negligence of the department and also observed that the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court.Court's ObservationsThe Court, at the outset, observed that four of the six claimants were minors when the suit was filed in the year 2019. Thus, it held that when majority of the claimants were minors on the date of filing of claim petition, it would be a case of 'continuous cause of action'.“…the cause of action normally accrues when there is in existence a person who can sue and another who can be sued and in the present case when the notice was sent in the year then only right to sue has accrued in the favour of the plaintiff, therefore the present case is not barred by limitation,” it added.The Court also observed that in the instant case, the minor claimants filed the case after service of the notice to the respondent. Therefore, at the most, it can be stated that the cause of action started when the first notice was served on 12.01.2019 and the suit having been filed 25.9.2019, it cannot be held to be barred by limitation.Then the Bench proceeded on to peruse the evidence adduced by the witnesses, two of whom had consistently stated that the deceased got in contact with the live electric wire for which he died and denied all the suggestions to the effect that he died due to his own negligence.The Court also noted that the electricity department prepared a panchanama on 04.11.2019, after five years of the incident, explaining therein that deceased died as he was trying to put a DO on the electric pole by climbing on it. The Bench was surprised as to what prompted the department to prepare such a panchanama after five years of death of the deceased.After relying on the statements made by the witnesses, the Court was of the view that in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the version of the witnesses would be acceptable and it will lead to fixing strict liability against the errant department. While rejecting the defence made by the electricity department against its liability, the Court relied upon the ruling of the High Court in a similar case in Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. & Another v. Smt. Bhagwati Bai wherein reliance was placed upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Ors. to hold the department strictly liable.Accordingly, having regard for the aforesaid precedents, the Court held the department strictly liable for the death of the deceased. Consequently, it ordered a compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 10,78,000/- in favour of the claimants. Case Title: Rameshwari & Ors. v. Junior/Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Office, Balodabazar & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 4Case No: FA No. 151 of 2023Date of Judgment: January 24. 2024Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate; Mr. Prajanal Agrawal, Amicus CuriaeCounsel for the Respondents: Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. AdvocateClick Here To Read/Download Order

Electrocution Death | Compensation Can't Be Denied To Claimants Merely Because Claim Made After Limitation Period: Chhattisgarh High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Electrocution Death | Compensation Can't Be Denied To Claimants Merely Because Claim Made After Limitation Period: Chhattisgarh High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers