Orissa High Court: D Dash J. dismissed the appeal and held the appellants liable for compensation.
The facts of the case are such that the husband of the Plaintiff’ in the original suit, aged 44 years, earning Rs 8000 a month was going to his agricultural field suddenly came in contact with 11 K.V. electric wire, electrocuted and met an instantaneous death by said electrocution. Plaintiff 1 being wife and Plaintiff 2 being mother of the deceased filed the suit claiming compensation from the Defendants i.e. Central Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa and its officials. The trial court held that the Plaintiffs are entitled to be compensated by the defendants on account of negligence. The Defendants then preferred an appeal challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court and Plaintiff filed a cross-appeal for increasing the quantum of compensation. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, the lower appellate court has allowed the cross-appeal enhancing the quantum of compensation. Assailing the said dismissal order instant second appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code i.e. CPC was filed.
Counsel for the appellants Mr B. Dash submitted that the basis of the evidence that the overhead live electric wire being snapped when touches the ground, the supply of electricity through that wire is totally disrupted from end to end which has gone unchallenged; the courts below ought not to have said that the death of the husband of Plaintiff was due to the electrocution for the reason that the deceased came in contact with snapped overhead electric wire when he was on his way to the agricultural field. It was further submitted that the factual aspect is beyond pleadings and based on evidence.
Counsel for the respondents Mr B. Mohanty submitted that the court did commit no mistake in recording the said findings under attack and those are based on just and proper appreciation of evidence on record. It was submitted that the assessment of compensation as made by the lower appellate court is also in consonance with the settled principles as have been holding the field.
The Court observed that the principle of law is settled that a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”.
The Court further observed that it is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human, being, who gets unknowingly trapped into if the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy.
The Court thus held “that the mistake committed by the trial court on those factual aspects by ignoring certain evidence on record and in not taking judicial notice of certain facts has been well rectified in appeal and in that way, it is found that the lower appellate court has so exercised its jurisdiction and power within the four corners of law.”
In view of the above, appeal was dismissed.[Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Damayanti Samal, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 166, decided on 15-03-2021]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.