ORDER
A.K. Patnaik, J.
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to pay the compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of an electrical accident.
2. The petitioner’s case in this writ petition is that on 17-10-1990 at about 3.30 p.m., the dwelling house of the petitioner located at Mission Road, Kashipur, Resham Bazar in West Tripura and all the belongings of the petitioner in the said house were
totally gutted due to an electrical accident. After the accident, the Electrical Inspector of Government of Trlpura, visited the site on 18-10-1990 at about 11.30 p.m. and submitted a report stating that the accident took place on account of sparks from the electric line going to the house of the petitioner. Simultaneously, the Divisional Fire Officer, West Tripura Division, Agartala also submitted a Fire Report No. 154 dated 17-10-1990 stating that the fire accident was caused due to tremendous electric sparks which fell on the thatched roof of the petitioner. In the said Fire, it was also reported that the total value of the property involved in the accident was Rs. 50,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/-worth of property had been saved from the fire, and the petitioner had suffered a damage to the tune of Rs.45,000/-. The petitioner, therefore, requested the Chief Engineer (Elect.), Government of Tripura, by his letter dated 17-10-1990, to pay the compensation of Rs. 45,000/- for the loss suffered by him due to fault of electric supply line. He also addressed representations to the Minister, State, Power, Government of Trlpura, on or about 15-11-1990 and 21-3-1991, making a similar request to pay the compensation. He also made a prayer before the Secretary, Power, Government of Tripura, in his letters dated 9-9-1991 and 26-11-1991, to pass necessary orders for payment of compensation. Finally, the petitioner served notice dated 13-7-1993 under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, claiming compensation of Rs. 45,000/- with interest @ 17% per annum on account of fire accident due to electrical fault till realisation. As there has been no response to bis aforesaid written request, representations and notice under Section 80. CPC, the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 in this application for appropriate relief.
3. At the hearing, Mr. M. N. Indu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the report of the Electrical Inspector, Government of Tripura and the Fire Report annexed to the Additional Affidavit filed in the case show that due to the defect in the electric supply line to the house of the petitioner, the fire accident occurred as a result of which the petitioner suffered loss of property worth Rs. 45,000/-. Hence, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation for the loss suffered by the petitioner with interest @ 17% per annum, and this Court should issue appropriate directions to pay the same
to the petitioner.
4. Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Tripura, on the other hand, submitted relying on the averments in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents that from the aforesaid report of the Electrical Inspector and the Fire Report there was no clear indication as to how the accident took place and that unless it was established by the petitioner that the fire accident took place due to the fault in service connection or for any other laches and negligence on the part of the respondents, the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation.
5. The report of the Electrical Inspector, Government of Tripura, as annexed to the Additional Affidavit filed in this case by the petitioner on 9-9-1999 is to the following effect :
” Intimation of an electrical accident at Kashipur was received at 7 p.m. on 17-10-1990 at the resident from a person of that locality. The undersigned visited the site of the accident at 11.30A.M. on 18-10-1990 along with the Resident Electrical Engineer. Agartala. One house with mud wall having Sungrass roof on wood frame was found totally gutted and huge burnt belongings were spreaded here and there. Another nearby house was also found partially burnt.
Electric Service connection was extended in the gutted house with the help of PVC cable through GI pipe. It was reported by 2 (two) eye witnesses that there was first sparks at the top of GI service pipe and then fire engulfed the roof from the sparkles falling from the top of GI pipe. The fire was finally extinguished by fire service personnel.
The service Cable was removed by the Electrical Staff posted at Khayerpur Section Office. On inspection of the dismantled pipe and the service Cable, it was observed that there was no rubber bush or any insulating bush at the GI pipe of the entry of PVC Service Cable and aluminium conductor of the Cable was melied near the entry of GI pipe for short distance and after that the Cable was not affected.
It appeared that sparking at the entry of GI pipe was caused due to failure of PVC insulation of the Cable at the entrance where the cable was bend. There was neither earth continuity wire nor the pole was earthed from where tapping for service line was
made. The composite line of 11 KV and 440 V. in that pole also did not have required guarding arrangement and there was no cut-out for that service line in that pole. The exact cause of accident may be ascertained from the report of the Fire Service personnel who had visited the site within short period of the occurrence of the accident.
Sd/- CR Bhattacharjee
Electrical Inspector
Agartala : Tripura
it would be clear from the 2nd paragraph of the aforesaid report of the Electrical Inspector that the electric service connection was extended to the gutted house with the help of PVC cable through GI pipe. It was reported by the two eye witnesses that there were first sparks at the top of GI service pipe and then fire engulfed the roof from the said sparks falling from the top of GI pipe. In the 3rd paragraph of the aforesaid report, it was further reported that on inspection of the pipe and the service cable which had been removed by the electrical staff posted at Khayerpur Section Office, it was observed that there was no rubber bush or any insulating bush at the GI pipe at the entry of PVC service cable and the aluminium conductor of the cable was melted near the entry of the GI pipe up to a short distance and after that the cable was not affected. In 4th paragraph of the aforesaid report, it was further stated by the Electrical Inspector that it appeared that sparking at the entry of GI pipe was caused due to failure of PVC insulation of the Cable at the entrance where the cable was found bend and that there was neither earth continuity wire nor was the pole earthed from where tapping for service line was made. In the said 4th paragraph of the report, the Electrical Inspector further stated that the composite line of 11KV and 440 V. in that pole also did not have required guarding arrangement and there was no cut-out for that service line in that pole. In the last part of the report, however, the Electrical Inspector has stated that the exact cause of the accident might be ascertained from the report of the Fire Service Personnel who had visited the site within short period of the occurrence of the accident. The Fire Report dated 17-10-1990, a copy of which has been annexed to the Additional Affidavit as Annexure-‘B’ states the cause of the fire as follows :
“PVC service lead at the entrance of GI
pipe was damaged due to earth fall and caused tremendous electric spark which was fallen on the thatched roof.”
Thus, although as per the aforesaid Fire Report, the immediate cause of the accident was earth fall due to which the PVC service lead at the entrance of the GI pipe was damaged, it is clear from the report of the Electrical Inspector that, sparking at the entry of the GI pipe was caused due to failure of PVC insulation of the cable at the entrance where the cable was found bend. Thus, it was on account of failure of PVC insulation of the cable that the electrical accident took place.
6. The Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, made thereunder cast some statutory duties or obligations on a supplier of electricity. A supplier has been defined in rule 2(ap) as a licensee, a non-licensee or any other supplier of energy, including the Government. ‘Sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules, 1956, are to the following effect ;
“30. SERVICE LINES AND APPARATUS ON CONSUMER’S PREMISES, – (1) The supplier shall ensure that all electric supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus belonging to him or under his control, which are on a consumer’s premises, are in a safe condition and in all respects fit for supplying energy and the supplier shall take due precautions to avoid danger arising on such premises from such supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus.
(2) Service-lines placed by the supplier on the premises of a consumer which are underground or which are accessible shall be so insulated and protected by the supplier as to be secured under all ordinary conditions against electrical, mechanical, chemical or other injury to the insulation.”
Under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 30 quoted above, a supplier is under a statutory duty or obligation to ensure that all electric supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus belonging to him or under his control, which are on a consumer’s premises, are in safe condition and in all respects fit for supplying energy. The said sub-Rule further casts a statutory duty or obligation on the supplier to take due precautions to avoid danger arising on such premises from such supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30 quoted above further casts
a statutory duty or obligation on the supplier to protect and insulate service lines placed by the supplier on the premises of a consumer which are underground or which are accessible so as to be secured under all ordinary conditions against electrical, mechanical, chemical or other injury to the insulation. The aforesaid discussion on the report of the Electrical Inspector would show that the State Government or its employees who are suppliers of energy to the premises of the petitioners had not performed their obligations or duties under the said sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 30 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and as a result the electrical accident took place and the house of the petitioner was gutted by fire due to the accident. The State of Tripura is, therefore, liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss suffered by him on account of the aforesaid accident due to breach of statutory duty or obligation under sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 30 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956.
7. It is clear from the Fire Report that the petitioner has suffered a loss of property of Rs. 45,000/-. The aforesaid figure of Rs. 45,000/- has not been disputed by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition filed in the case and the only case of the respondents in the said affidavit-in-opposition is that since the petitioner has not been able to establish that the fire accident took place due to any fault in the service connection or for any other negligence or laches on the part of the respondents, he is not entitled to the said compensation of Rs. 45,000/-with interest @ 17% per annum.
8. Since I have held that the report of the Electrical Inspector and the Fire Report submitted soon after the accident revealed breach of statutory duty or obligation on the part of the authorities of the Electricity Department on account of which the accident took place and the petitioner suffered loss of property, I direct the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay the petitioner the aforesaid compensation of Rs.45,000/- with interest @ 17% per annum with effect from 3-11-1993 when the writ petition was filed before this Court. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I award a cost of Rs.2000/-. The aforesaid directions be complied with by the respondent-authorities within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Power Department, Agartala from the petitioner.
9. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with cost of Rs.2000/- as indicated
above.