Gujarat High Court Upholds Compensation For Electrocution Death While Repairing TV Antenna, Says Electricity Board Strictly Liable

The Gujarat High Court upheld a trial court order granting compensation of Rs. 3 Lakh to the family of a man who was electrocuted while assisting his brother in repairing a television antenna on the terrace of a flat, after the antenna came into contact with an electric wire above it. In doing so the court applied the principle of strict and absolute liability and directed the trial court to disburse the compensation to the claimants. On October 30,1988 brothers Nitin Sitaram and Rajendra Sitaram lost their lives after being electrocuted on the terrace of a flat, wherein Nitin was repairing the television antenna on the terrace and Rajendra was assisting him.A high tension electric line was passing over the terrace of the flat, when during the repair work the iron pipe of the antenna came into contact with the overhead electric wire, resulting in the brothers being electrocuted.Meanwhile Rajesh's heirs filed a suit before the trial court seeking Rs. 5 Lakh as compensation along with interest on account of tortuous liability of the Electricity Board. The suit was partly decreed in the plaintiffs' favour wherein the board was directed to pay Rs. 3 Lakh at the rate of 6% with accrued interest from the date of suit till realization. Against this Gujarat Electricity Board moved the high court. Justice JC Doshi in his order said:"In the present case, two brothers have lost their life and the learned trial Court has valued the loss of human life at a very meager amount of Rs.3 lakh only. Thus, without touching the merits of the case considering the fact that the GEB is engaged in selling the hazardous substance, is required to pay compensation for loss of human life resulted from electrocution applying the principles of strict and absolute liability". Be that as it may, the court addressed the submissions by the Board and observed that trial court had dismissed the suit filed by heirs of Nitin Sitaram, after finding him negligent in causing the accident. The High Court however held that this finding of the trial court was "abrasive of judicial discipline", holding that the two suits filed by heirs of both brothers arise from the same incident and thus trial court could not have given "two different and contradictory findings"."Secondly, it appears that the learned trial Court has weighed away with the factual aspect that deceased Nitin was fixing the television antenna and deceased Rajendra was assisting him. The iron pipe being part of antenna came in contact with the HT electricity line when it was hold by deceased Nitin and therefore, the learned trial Court held deceased Nitin negligent, but deceased Rajendra, who was assisting deceased Nitin, was not held negligent...As far as present case is concerned, deceased Rajendra cannot be held negligent. The issue of negligence cannot be attributed to the deceased as the HT electricity line was passing just above the building constructed by the Gujarat Housing Board. It is pertinent to note that deceased Nitin was minor at the time of accident and therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the minor" the court said. GEB argued that Nitin Sitaram's heirs had also filed a suit before the same court seeking compensation of Rs.1 lakh, and his suit was considered as lead suit and all evidence were recorded therein. It was submitted that the same civil judge had dismissed Nitin's suit believing that both the brothers were negligent. It was thus argued, that applying the principle of res judicata in the present case, the trial court should have held that Rajendra was also negligent as had been held in Nitin's case. It was also contended that the high tension (HT) electric line had been installed prior to the construction of the building. Thus in view of provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, since the lines were properly maintained and proper distance as required under the applicable rules was also properly maintained, the electricity board cannot be held liable for the accident. Meanwhile the claimants contended that the principles of strict or absolute liability should not be applied where proper safety measures and statutory distances have been maintained.It was submitted that in the present case, the electricity company failed to take adequate precautions while dealing with a hazardous activity such as transmission of electricity. It was submitted that if proper safety distance had been maintained, the antenna would not have come into contact with the electric line, and the accident could have been avoided. Further, whether adequate distance was maintained or not is a question of fact to be determined in each case. The court also rejected the submission that Gujarat Housing Board had constructed the flat subsequent to the establishment of the electricity line and so the board cannot be held liable for the accident. The court referred to H.S.E.B. v/s. Ram Nath (2004) wherein the Supreme Court had reiterated the extension of principles of strict...

Gujarat High Court Upholds Compensation For Electrocution Death While Repairing TV Antenna, Says Electricity Board Strictly Liable

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags