Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010268972023 2025:GAU-AS:3430 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6983/2023 SANDHYA RANI RABHA W/O- LATE MANTESH KR RABHA, R/O- VILLAGE TARAIBARI, P.O- DARIDURI, P.S- GOALPARA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, POWER AND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. REP. BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01 4:THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR GOVT. OF ASAM MAHABHAYRAB BUILDING SOUTH SARANIA CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03 5:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/6 GOALPARA P.O AND DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM 6:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ( LAW) APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01 7:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-1 8:SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER GOALPARA ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL LAR GOALPARA 9:ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER GOALPARA ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL LAR BHALUKDUBI GOALPARA P.O- BHALUKDUBI P.S AND DIST- GOALPARA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, D BARUAH,MR H DAS,MR. B C DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 26.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. H Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5 and Mr. J K Goswami, learned standing counsel, APDCL Page No.# 3/6 appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3, 6 to 9. 2. The husband of the petitioner died on 10.10.2022 due to electrocution. An FIR was lodged before the Goalpara Police station which was registered as Goalpara P.S. U.D case No.23/2022 dated 10.10.2022. Post mortem was conducted over the dead body and the post mortem report suggests that the cause of death is due to electrocution. In the aforesaid backdrop, seeking compensation, the present writ petition is filed. 3. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.4 i.e., Chief Electrical Inspector, wherein, the enquiry conducted under section 161 & 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is annexed. The enquiry report suggests that there were negligence on the part of the APDCL authority in not taking adequate precautions and thus violated Regulation 19(1). The enquiry report further suggests that there is violation of Regulation 19(3) by the deceased himself, inasmuch as, according to the report, the deceased person tried to trim a bamboo tree which was in touch with the live bare conductor of the 11KV APTF feeder emanating from 33/11KV Chutki sub-station and as a result the victim received fatal electric shock and was electrocuted. 4. In the backdrop of the above, now let this Court look into the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accident) Regulation, 2019 (for short “the Regulation of 2019”) which was made in terms with the mandate of Section 57(2) and 57(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and its implications. I. Chapter III of the Regulation of 2019 deals with the compensation. Section 5 of the Regulation of 2019 Page No.# 4/6 stipulates that the Licensee/the Generating Company including the CPP shall be liable to pay compensation as specified in the Regulation of 2019 to the person affected or his dependants for loss of animal or human life or injury to human beings and animals in consequences of an electrical accident provided the electrical accident is attributable to the fault/negligence of the Licensee/Generating Company/CPP. II. The proviso to the said Section stipulates that if the loss of human life is due to suicide or homicide, or injury to a human being is due to an attempt to commit suicide or homicide the licensee/generating company/CPP shall not be liable to pay any compensation in terms with the Regulation of 2019. The quantum of compensation payable as per Section 6 of the Regulation of 2019 is mentioned in Schedule B to the said Regulations. III. Section 9 of the Regulations of 2019 prescribes that the right of any person to claim compensation as stipulated in Section 5 to 8 of the Regulation of 2019 shall not affect the right of any person to recover compensation payable under any other law of the time being in force. However the amount paid as compensation under the Regulation of 2019 shall be duly deducted from such compensation payable under any other law so as to avoid double payment by the licensee/Generating Company/CPP. Page No.# 5/6 IV. Chapter III and IV of the Regulation of 2019 shows that a victim or his dependants are to be provided prompt redressal on account of the damage, injury or death, if it occurs on account of the fault of the licensee/Generating Company/CPP. Further the manner of filing applications, the urgent mandate for payment of compensation as per Section 18 of the Regulation of 2019 as well as the interest to be paid, if there is a delay in terms with Section 20 of the Regulations clearly suggest the requirement of prompt relief to the victim, if there is a fault on the part of the Licensee/Generating Company/CPP. V. It is relevant to note that Section 5 of the Regulation of 2019, does not mention that the electrical accident should be solely attributable to the fault/negligence of the licensee/Generating Company/CPP. It only stipulates that the liability would accrue, if there is an electrical accident attributable to the fault/negligence of the licensee/ Generating Company/CPP. It is also pertinent to keep in mind that the provisions of the Regulation of 2019 are in the nature of welfare legislation. 5. Now coming to the case in hand, the electrical accident report, categorically mentions that there was a fault/negligence on the part of the APDCL authorities although not solely. Under such circumstances, taking into account the language used in Section 5 of the Regulations of 2019 as recorded hereinabove, Page No.# 6/6 this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner herein would be entitle to the compensation in terms with Schedule B of the Regulations of 2019. 6. A perusal of Schedule B of the Regulation of 2019 would show that the compensation to be payable on account of loss of human life is Rs. 4,00,000/-. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the petitioner herein would be entitled to the amount Rs. 4,00,000/- from the APDCL Authorities. 7. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition thereby directing APDCL authorities and more particularly the Chairman cum Managing Director to ensure that the petitioner receives the compensation of the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served upon the Respondent No.1. 8. It is further observed that in the circumstance, the amount directed to be paid within the time stipulated herein is not paid, the petitioner would be entitled to interest in terms with Section 20 of the Regulation of 2019. 9. Before parting, this Court observes that the petitioner herein would be at liberty to avail other remedies to seek compensation in spite of the compensation awarded herein. 10. With the above observations and directions the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant