General information of the case:
1) Decided by Kh. Nobin Singh J. at Manipur High Court.
2) Judgment Dt. 6 January, 2020 in WP (c) no. 1054 of 2018.
3) Petitioner is resident of Litan Sareikhong, Ukhrul District, of Manipur
4) Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner is Shri R.S. Reisang.
5) Learned Addl. Advocate General Shri S. Rupachandra appeared for respondents.
Facts of case:
6) Husband of petitioner had died due to electrocution and petitioner prayed for compensation from respondents who are the officers of electricity department of State of Manipur, Manipur State Power Company Ltd. (MSPCL), and Manipur State Power Distribution Company Ltd. (MSPDCL).
7) The petitioner’s husband, after his retirement, was assigned the task of repairing the power lines within the jurisdiction of the Litan Sub-Station, by the Manipur State Power Distribution Company Limited on a consolidated pay of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month.
8) Dt. 11-04-2017: Two villagers lodged complaint of power failure. On the directions of the authority petitioner’s husband started maintenance work of the power line along with one other staff member of the electricity department. He was trying to connect the power line by climbing on an electric pole installed in the electric sub-station of Litan. As power line was transmitted from the main power station, it caused severe electrical shock to petitioner’s husband and he fell down from the pole unconscious on the ground. He immediately admitted to Raj Medicity, Imphal for treatment.
9) Dt. 13-04-2017: As said incidence happened during the duty of the deceased, MSPDCL & MSPCL through their representatives entered into an agreement with the petitioner bear 3/4th of the expenses incurred towards the medical treatment.
10) Dt. 28-04-2017: Petitioner’s husband died due to injuries caused by severe electric shock to him in the hospital.
11) Respondents denied the fact of appointment of the deceased and pleaded that the deceased trespassed the said sub-station and tried to attach the HT 11 KV line emanating from 33/11 KV Sub-station without informing the authority concerned which is illegal. It was admitted by the respondents have paid Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of accident for treatment and Rs. 3,30,000/- on humanitarian grounds.
Legal grounds pleaded by petitioners:
12)In Somi Kamkar Vs. State of Manipur & ors., WP(C) No.894 of 2017 Dt. 10-07-2018 it was held by the High Court that
12.1) The compensation of an incidence can be divided into two categories: firstly, a compensation that can be claimed in private law and secondly, a compensation that can be claimed in public law for violation of fundamental rights.
12.2) The law relating to payment of compensation on account of the violation of fundamental rights, is no longer res integra means it is not at all an entirely new and untouched concept.
13) In Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar & ors., (1983) 4 SCC 141
13.1) Underlining the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right to life and liberty, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered for payment of compensation in the nature of a palliative.
13.2) The violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation.
13.4) The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield.
13.5) If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy.
14) The award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as defence in private law in an action based on tort.
15) The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy.
16) Guarantee of fundamental rights justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
17) If the guarantee that deprivation of life and personal liberty cannot be made except in accordance with law, is to be real, the enforcement of the right in case of every contravention must also be possible in the constitutional scheme, the mode of redress being that which is appropriate in the facts of each case.
18) In D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, the Supreme Court held:
18.1) The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortious acts of the public servants.
18.2) Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved.
18.3) Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.
18.4) The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations.
18.5) Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim — civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process.
19) In M.C. Mehta & anr. Vs. Union of India & ors., (1987) 1 SCC 395, the Supreme Court held:
19.1) Supreme Court under Article 32(1) is free to devise any procedure appropriate for the particular purpose of the proceeding, namely, enforcement of a fundamental right.
19.2) Under Article 32(2) the Supreme Court has the implicit power to issue whatever direction, order or writ is necessary in a given case, including all incidental or ancillary power necessary to secure enforcement of the fundamental right.
19.3) Article 32 is not powerless to assist a person when he finds that his fundamental right has been violated. He can in that event seek remedial assistance under Article 32. The power of the Supreme Court to grant such remedial relief may include the power to award compensation in appropriate cases.
19.4) Ordinarily, of course, a petition under Article 32 should not be used as a substitute for enforcement of the right to claim compensation for infringement of a fundamental right through the ordinary process of civil court.
20) The High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is competent to award compensation in cases where the fundamental rights, guaranteed in the Constitution of India, have been infringed by the State authorities.
Order of Court:
21) The facts of the present case are slightly different from that of Somi Kamkar case because
21.1) Deceased was working in the Electricity Department as Assistant Lineman and after his retirement, he was re-engaged as the lineman.
21.2) Deceased was fully aware of the electricity and in particular, the rules and regulation applicable to the installation, distribution and service thereof.
21.3) There is no material on record to show that it was due to the prima facie negligence of the respondents.
21.4) The stand of the respondent is that the deceased without any authority, he went up to the pole for repairing.
21.5) and hence said judgment is not applicable to the present case.
22) High Court directed the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 shall pay to the petitioner the balance amount of Rs.1 lakh towards ex-gratia within two months.
23) It is made clear that this judgment and order shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum including the civil court for redressal of her grievance under the private law towards payment of compensation.