Summary
In two electrocution compensation claims brought by writ petition against the State transmission utility, the Supreme Court held that the governing standard is strict liability, subject to its recognised exceptions, not absolute liability. Since facts bearing on negligence and those exceptions were disputed, the writ petitions were not maintainable; the Court also held that the Motor Vehicles Act multiplier method cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution cases. The High Court's awards were set aside, leaving the claimants to pursue alternative remedies.
Issues
- Whether writ petitions under Article 226 seeking compensation for electrocution were maintainable when material facts were disputed.
- Whether a power transmission utility's liability for electrocution is absolute or strict.
- What yardstick governs compensation in electrocution cases, and whether the multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be applied.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaApplying Radha Krishan Industries, T.N. Cements Corpn. and Gridco v. Sukamani Das, the Court held that where questions of fact bearing on negligence and liability are disputed, a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for electrocution compensation and the claimant should be relegated to the civil remedy. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 16)
- Section 57, Electricity Act, 2003Noted that the Act makes the licensee liable to pay compensation in certain situations under Section 57 but prescribes no method for computing compensation. (¶ 15)
- Multiplier method of computing compensation, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Following Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, the Court held that the MVA multiplier-based framework adopted by the High Court could not be applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution cases; just, fair and reasonable compensation based on income and related claims governs. (¶¶ 3, 15)
Held
- A writ under Article 226 may be issued despite an alternative remedy in recognised situations, but the High Court may decline jurisdiction where facts are disputed. In electrocution cases, negligence and the circumstances of contact with the line must be proved, and where these are genuinely disputed, Article 226 is not an appropriate remedy. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- The disputed facts included the victim's or plantation owner's own negligence in using an aluminium ladder near an 11 KV line, the condition of backup relays, which entity was responsible for lines of that voltage, compliance with the mandated 4-metre clearance from the building, and the effect of the building owner's undertaking. (¶ 9)
- Absolute liability, as laid down in the Oleum Gas Leak case, admits no exceptions; strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher imposes liability irrespective of fault but is subject to recognised exceptions such as consent, act of a stranger, statutory authority, act of God and the plaintiff's own default (Kaushnuma Begum). (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- For electrocution, strict rather than absolute liability is the appropriate standard. Transmission of electricity is inherently dangerous and the State utility, able to spread loss, must compensate irrespective of fault even if it took reasonable care, unless an exception to strict liability applies. The High Court erred in treating disputed facts as irrelevant on the footing of absolute liability. (¶¶ 10, 14)
- Compensation for electrocution cannot be computed by applying the Motor Vehicles Act multiplier method mutatis mutandis; the overarching principle of just, fair and reasonable compensation based on the person's income and related claims governs. (¶ 15)
- As disputed questions of fact were involved, the writ petitions seeking compensation were not maintainable. (¶ 16)
Result
Both appeals allowed; Single Judge and Division Bench judgments set aside; claimants at liberty to pursue alternative remedies, to be decided expeditiously and uninfluenced by these observations; interim compensation of Rs. 5 lakh already paid not to be recovered or to affect any final award; parties to bear their own costs.