Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010024022020 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RFA/8/2021 ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 5 ORS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 5 ORS Address - HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001. 2: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. 3: THE SENIOR MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. NUTUNPARA HAILAKANDI TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI. 4: THE DEPUTY MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. NUTUNPARA HAILAKANDI TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI. 5: THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED HAILAKANDI ELECTRICAL DIVISION NUTUNPARA HAILAKANDI TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI 6: THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER (LAW) Page No.# 2/11 ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. ( ALL THE APPLICANTS REP. BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATION (HRA) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. VERSUS SMTI. ARCHANA RANI CHANDA AND 4 ORS SMTI. ARCHANA RANI CHANDA AND 4 ORS Address - W/O- LATE BINAY CHANDA, R/O- MOHANPUR PT.-III, P.O. MOHANPUR, P.S. ALGAPUR, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. 2:BISWAJIT CHANDA S/O- LATE BINAY CHANDA R/O- MOHANPUR PT.-III P.O. MOHANPUR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 3:BISHAL CHANDA S/O- LATE BINAY CHANDA R/O- MOHANPUR PT.-III P.O. MOHANPUR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 4:BIKRAMJIT CHANDA S/O- LATE BINAY CHANDA R/O- MOHANPUR PT.-III P.O. MOHANPUR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 5:SMTI. CHAYA RANI CHANDA M/O- LATE BINAY CHANDA R/O- MOHANPUR PT.-III P.O. MOHANPUR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST.- HAILAKANDI Page No.# 3/11 ASSAM. (OPP. PARTIES NO. 2 3 AND 4 BEING MINORS ARE REP. BY THEIR MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. OPP. PARTY NO. 1) Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B DAS, MR D BHATTACHARYA,MRS R DEKA,MR H K SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. I H BARBHUIYA, MS R RAJKHOWA Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1234/2021 ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 5 ORS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 5 ORS Address - HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. VERSUS SMTI. ARCHANA RANI CHANDA AND 4 ORS SMTI. ARCHANA RANI CHANDA AND 4 ORS Address - W/O- LATE BINAY CHANDA R/O- MOHANPUR PT.-III P.O. MOHANPUR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 2:ADINOR SOMBAD A) PUBLISHED BY BRIDGE EAST TELE PRODUCTION PVT. LTD. REP. BY BASANTA KUMAR BARUA R/O- B) A.M.S PRINTER AND PUBLISHER DALBARI SATGAON GUWAHATI- 781171 C) CHANDAN KUMAR BARUA (EXECUTIVE EDITOR). ------------ Advocate for : MR B DAS Advocate for : appearing for SMTI. ARCHANA RANI CHANDA AND 4 ORS Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1011/2022 Page No.# 4/11 ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 5 ORS HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. 2: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. 3: THE SENIOR MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. NUTUNPARA HAILAKANDI TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI. 4: THE DEPUTY MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. NUTUNPARA HAILAKANDI TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI. 5: THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED HAILAKANDI ELECTRICAL DIVISION NUTUNPARA HAILAKANDI TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI 6: THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER (LAW) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. ( ALL THE APPLICANTS REP. BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATION (HRA) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001.) VERSUS SMTI. ARCHANA RANI CHANDA AND 4 ORS. Page No.# 5/11 W/O- LATE BINAY CHANDA R/O- MOHANPUR PT.-III P.O. MOHANPUR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 2:BISWAJIT CHANDA S/O- LATE BINAY CHANDA R/O- MOHANPUR PT.-III P.O. MOHANPUR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 3:BISHAL CHANDA S/O- LATE BINAY CHANDA R/O- MOHANPUR PT.-III P.O. MOHANPUR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 4:BIKRAMJIT CHANDA S/O- LATE BINAY CHANDA R/O- MOHANPUR PT.-III P.O. MOHANPUR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 5:SMTI. CHAYA RANI CHANDA M/O- LATE BINAY CHANDA R/O- MOHANPUR PT.-III P.O. MOHANPUR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. (OPP. PARTIES NO. 2 3 AND 4 BEING MINORS ARE REP. BY THEIR MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. OPP. PARTY NO. 1). ------------ Advocate for : MR. B D DEKA Advocate for : appearing for SMTI. ARCHANA RANI CHANDA AND 4 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND Page No.# 6/11 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A. Deka Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. I. H. Barbhuiyan Date of Hearing : 11.03.2025 Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Deka for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. I. H. Barbhuiyan for the respondents. 2. The appellants in this case are namely, (i) Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati, (ii) The Chief General Manager, APDCL, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati, (iii) The Senior Manager, APDCL, Nutunpara, Hailakandi, (iv) The Deputy Manager, APDCL, Nutunpara, Hailakandi, (v) The Assistant General Manager, APDCL, Nutunpara, Hailakandi and (vi) The Assistant General Manager, (Law), Paltan-Bazaar, Guwahati. 3. The respondents namely, (i) Smt. Archana Rani Chanda, (ii) Shri Biswajit Chanda, (iii) Shri Bishal Chanda, (iv) Shri Bikramjit Chanda, and (v) Smt. Chaya Chanda, are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 5 respectively. 4. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2018 and Decree dated 25.04.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi, in connection with Money Suit No. 08/2016, whereby the appellants were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondents. The money suit was brought up against the appellants by the plaintiffs (also referred to as the respondents) as the respondent No. 1's husband died as a result of electrocution. Negligence has been alleged by the Assam Power Distribution Page No.# 7/11 Company Limited (APDCL for short). It is further submitted that this money suit was also brought up against the appellants after the expiry of the period of limitation as per Article 82 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (The Act of 1963 for short). The money suit No. 08/2016 was not filed within the period of limitation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Court has ignored the fact that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which led to the unfortunate incident. The cross-examination of the DW-1 reveals that the deceased touched a live wire which snapped. It was in the wee hours of the morning at 2:30 a.m., during a cyclonic storm, when the incident had occurred and it was not possible for the officials to come to the aid of the deceased at that point of time. The post-mortem report marked as Annexure-6 of the appeal memo clearly reveals that death was owing to the result of :- (i) wounds caused by high voltage of electric current over the body through the palms. 6. The compensation was assessed on conjectures and surmises as the respondents/plaintiffs have not submitted any age proof or salary statement of the deceased. It has been mentioned in the plaint that the deceased during his lifetime was receiving an honorarium of Rs. 8000/- per month. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that a judicious order has been passed by the learned Civil Judge. This appeal is bereft of merits. The deceased was a teacher in a venture school which was subsequently provincialised. The deceased had great future prospects and he would have earned a regular salary had this unfortunate incident not occurred. Page No.# 8/11 It is not disputed that the deceased during his lifetime was earning Rs. 8000/- as salary. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that this case is not a case of contributory negligence as the deceased touched a live wire unknowingly. Binoy Chanda is the sole bread winner of his family and had the compensation been calculated with interest accrued, the compensation ought to have summed up to Rs. 12,15,000/-. It cannot be considered that a generous compensation has been awarded to the plaintiff/defendants. 8. The main issue in this case can be narrowed down to:- (i) whether the appellants were negligent in maintaining LT line which resulted in the death of Binoy Chanda. (ii) whether the respondents are entitled to the compensation as a result of death of Binoy Chanda. 9. The pleadings and the evidence clearly proves that Binoy Chanda died on 21.07.2013. He came in contact with live electric wire and was thus electrocuted. Through the written statement, the appellants have vehemently denied that there was negligence on their part. The workers under the appellants regularly visit the spot and check the electric lines and there were no loose electric lines as alleged by the respondents. Thus, they were regularly maintaining the electric lines. However, the evidence of the respondent No. 1 as PW-1, substantiates her pleadings. She has stated that the LT line was naked and damaged due to lack of routine maintenance by the defendants and was detached from the pole. Her husband came in contact with the live wire in the middle of the night on 21.07.2013, and died on the spot. An Ejahar(FIR) was lodged with the police at Algapur P.S. which was registered as Algapur P.S. UD Case No. 04/2013. PW-1 has mentioned through her pleadings and evidence that her husband was earning Rs. 8000/- per month. She has claimed for Page No.# 9/11 compensation under the following heads:- (i)Loss of dependency - Rs. 20,000 × Rs.12,000 × Rs. 30,000 - Rs. 5000 × Rs.4000 = Rs. 2,49,6000 (ii)Funeral and last rites expenses - Rs. 50,000 (iii)Loss of estate - Rs. 50,000 (iv)Loss of consortium - Rs. 50,000 (v)Transportation of dead body - Rs. 50,000 (vi)Loss of love and affection of the children - Rs. 1,00,000 10. It is true that no salary certificate has been exhibited by the plaintiff. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the cross- examination of the respondent No. 1 clearly reveals that the incident occurred at 6:30 p.m., on 21.07.2013. She has also admitted in her cross-examination about heavy storm and rain on the previous night before the incident and her husband was trying to remove the wire to facilitate passage of people and animal which resulted in his electrocution. It is true that she has admitted in her evidence that the department was not informed about the snapping of the electric line as a result of the storm on the previous night. The defendants/appellants did not substantiate their written statements though evidence. However, learned counsel for the appellants has laid stress in his argument that as allegedly, the electric lines snapped on the previous night, it was not possible for the officials to know about the damaged electric lines without any information. 11. The learned Civil Judge has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of SK Shangring Lamkang and Anr Vs. The State of Manipur and Ors, reported in 2007 (4) GLJ 692, wherein it has been observed that:- “The possibility of falling of high tension electric line from its pole as a result of storm or like name should have been reasonably anticipated Page No.# 10/11 by the respondents and as such appropriate steps should have been taken by them so that no harm was caused when some touch the fallen electric line The risk involved in the management of supply of electricity was very grave and a high degree care was expected of the respondents in as much as they ought to have appreciated the possibility of falling of the electric line from its pole as a result of storm or like name. Above from the said consideration, since the management of supply of electricity is a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, when harm is caused to any one on account of any cause in the operation of the activity, the respondent, who are responsible in respect of the said activity, shall be strictly and absolutely liable to compensate to those who are harmed in the course of operation of the said activity. Such liability is not to be subject to any exception to the principle of strict liability under the Rule in Ryland versus Fletcher. Accordingly, the respondents are liable to pay compensation in respect of the death of the said two persons resulting in electrocution.......“ 12. It was held by the learned Trial Court that in the light of the decision of the Court in SK Shangring Lamkang (Supra), the plea taken by the defendants (appellants), in this case too, cannot be considered to be justified. Moreover, the appellants have not adduced any evidence to prove that the said electric wire did not snap due to their negligence. It was held that the defendants/appellants were negligent in maintaining the LT line which led to the electrocution of deceased Binoy Chanda. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has emphasized through his argument that provision of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has not been complied with. Learned counsel for the appellants has however raised objection stating that non-compliance of Section 161 of the Act is not relevant to this case as this Page No.# 11/11 case is a money suit which was brought up against the appellants. 14. The learned Trial Court has spelt out sound reasonings while deciding this case. The minimum amount was allowed to be paid as compensation. The loss of dependency was also not calculated in its strict sense. 15. I have also taken into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that interest have also not been added along with the compensation. 16. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, this Court is hesitant to interfere with the appeal. 17. Appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 18. Send back the Trial Court Records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant