Calcutta HC Asks Legislature To Consider Introducing Provisions In Electricity Act, 2003 For Payment Of Compensation For Death/Injury Caused By Electrocution

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday called upon the legislature to immediately introduce specific provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003 (2003 Act) regarding payment of compensation to victims of injury, death or damage to property caused by electrocution or to their next of kin. 

The Court also observed that the legislature should also consider providing for a dedicated hierarchy of forums to decide such cases and that Rules may also be formulated by the Central or State Electricity Regulatory Commissions for effective implementation of such provisions.

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed, 

"It is desirable that the legislature considers the immediate introduction of specific provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003 itself, regarding payment of compensation to victims of injury, death of damage to property caused by electrocution or their next of kin and, if deemed fit, to also consider providing for a dedicated hierarchy of forums to decide such cases. Rules in that regard may also be formulated by the Central and/or State Electricity Regulatory Commissions for effective implementation of such provisions."

The Court further noted that relegating such matters of compensation to a Civil Court would aggravate the misery of the victim's kin and accordingly remarked, 

"The option of relegating such matters of compensation to a civil court, considering the usually sorry plight of the victim's dependants, would involve much time and resources which the applicants in such matters mostly cannot afford to spend. Civil suits, by their implicit nature and statutory structure, require oral and documentary evidence to be led and considered in detail before final disposal."

The Court further observed that the 2003 Act does not contain any provision whatsoever regarding compensation for injury, death or damage of property due to electrocution. It was further noted that Section 161 of the 2003 Act deals entirely with only notice of accidents and inquiries and modalities in such respect.

Referring to the Intimation of Accidents (Form and Time of Service of Notice) Rules, 2005, it was noted that the legislation merely frames rules regarding the form and time of service of notices of electrical accidents, but fails to reach further.

Justice Bhattacharyya further opined that apart from the decision of the Board of Directors of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) in its 69th meeting dated February 20, 2017, there is no other guideline in the relevant law for the grant of compensation for death by electrocution.

It was observed that the Board of Directors of the WBSEDCL had arbitrarily fixed Rs. 5 lakh as solatium payable in such cases without disclosing the methodology applied to arrive at such conclusion. Further referring to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court judgment in Joyrita Maity (Biswas) vs. WBSEDCL &Ors it was observed that the Single Judge had arrived at the quantum in the particular facts of the case; however, no uniform rule governing such compensation was laid down in the said judgment.

Background 

In the instant case, the petitioner's husband had died of electrocution on May 1, 2015 when energized electricity wire drawn over a brick-built government road fell over the deceased. Thereafter, the  petitioner made representations before the WBSEDCL for compensation on the ground of such demise.

However, WBSEDCL did not take any action in this regard which resulted in the filing of the instant petition. The issue for consideration before the Court was- what is the yardstick to be followed in granting compensation to the victim's next of kin in cases of demise by electrocution?

Observations 

The Court observed that distribution companies such as the WBSEDCL cannot shirk their responsibility in such accidents since the commodity dealt with by them carries a huge implicit risk and hazard, roughly comparable to producers, manufacturers and transporters of highly combustible or explosive materials.

It was also underscored that the compensation or solatium payable to victims or their kin cannot be assessed arbitrarily by such companies or licensees. 

Opining that since there is no existing law on payment of compensation in such cases, the Court remarked that distribution licensees must assess the compensation payable on a case to case basis but on a uniform yardstick as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder. 

"Since no guideline is provided in the extant law and rules/regulations, as placed before this court, the distribution licensees, for the time being, shall assess the compensation payable on a case to case basis, but on a uniform yardstick, by resorting to a multiplier akin to the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder, which stand on a similar footing, in the absence of a better alternative", the Court directed. 

Regarding the instant case, Justice Bhattacharyya observed that although there is no scope to direct consideration of appointment of the petitioner on sympathetic grounds (since the victim was not an employee of the WBSEDCL), the liability of the WBSEDCL to pay compensation to the petitioner cannot be avoided.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of by directing the WBSEDCL to decide the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner on the demise of her husband by electrocution, applying the multiplier and yardsticks as provided for death by accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder. 

"Such consideration should be completed as expeditiously as possible, positively within May 31, 2022, if necessary after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or her designated agent. The quantum of compensation thus arrived at shall be disbursed to the petitioner positively by June 15, 2022", the Court ordered further. 

Case Title: Kabita Mondal (Gayen) v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 88 

Click Here To Read/Download Order