Karnataka High Court dismisses KPTCL, Bescom appeals against orders to pay compensation to electrocution victims

Bengaluru: A division bench of the high court has dismissed the writ appeals filed by KPTCL, challenging the 2022 order of the single bench of awarding a total Rs 1.28 crore compensation in relation to three separate electrocution cases, including two minor victims. The division comprising Justices V Kameshwar Rao and CM Joshi upheld the single bench order holding that the breach of a statutory obligation resulting in harm to a person can be sought to be addressed by way of a Public Law Remedy through a petition under Article 226 (before the High Court).

On August 4, 2022, the single bench had cited the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and said that it is the duty of the Transmission Utility and Distribution Company to ensure safety of the equipment used for transmission and supply, which extends to ensuring the safety of the equipment in the consumer's premises. The order was passed while disposing of three petitions and ordering compensation to the victims, including two minors.

Among the petitioners before the single bench, Chandana K, a resident of Lottegollahalli, was a class nine student when she suffered grievous injuries due to electrocution on October 19, 2017. She had to undergo elbow as well as plastic surgeries and the court had awarded Rs 51.76 lakh compensation. In another incident involving a minor victim, Muizz Ahmed Shariff (6-year-old) was electrocuted in 2017 after coming in contact with the induction zone of 66 KV HT Line. The court had awarded Rs 50.82 lakh compensation. In the third case, Subramanya, an agricultural worker, had died of electrocution while working in a coffee plantation. The court had granted Rs 25,52,500 as total compensation.

The KPTCL and Bescom moved writ appeals arguing that the claimants have to approach the civil court. The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 provides for the legal representatives of the deceased to file a suit seeking compensation, it was contended adding that there exists disputed facts in individual cases.

The division bench said that the grant of compensation by the single bench under different heads which are recognized in law cannot be said to be on the higher side. “..we find that the learned Single Judge has noted the statutory obligations of an electric company to ensure during transmission and distribution irrespective of the duties of the consumers. So in that sense, the plea that facts are disputed and cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction would be without merit and inconsequential when the liability is absolute,” the bench said.