In these proceedings the petitioner has called into question the legality of an order dated 2 January 2014 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Allahabad on an application which was moved under Section 6 of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 19911. The Collector has, taking due note of the fact that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid over to the petitioner on account of an accidental death of his son caused due to electrocution, directed the payment of a further sum of Rs.80,000/-. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order and claims an enhancement of the compensation to an amount of Rs. 5 lacs, on which interest has been claimed at the rate of 12% per annum.
The residential house of the petitioner is situated in Mohalla Ramkiyan Gandhi Nagar, Nagar Panchayat Sirsa, Allahabad. A high tension electric overhead cable passes in close proximity. On 8 August 2004, the high tension electric cable snapped, as a result of which the petitioner's son Raj Kumar, who was about 24 years of age, came into contact with the wire and sustained grievous injury. The petitioner's son succumbed to the injuries. A report of the incident was lodged by the petitioner at Police Station Meja, District Allahabad on 9 August 2004. The police prepared an inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The cause of the death was ascertained in the post-mortem report to be due to shock as a result of passage of electricity in the body. The petitioner's son was, at the material time, a student of IInd year of the B.A. Degree course. The petitioner moved the U.P. Power Corporation for the grant of compensation. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the Joint Director. Since no further steps were taken for the disbursal of the compensation, the petitioner moved proceedings2 before this Court. In the said proceedings, an order was passed on 29 October 2010 by a Division Bench of this Court by which a direction was issued to the effect that if the petitioner furnished all the relevant documentary material to the Executive Engineer, his claim for the grant of compensation shall be decided in accordance with law. In compliance with the order, the petitioner submitted a copy of the first information report, post-mortem report and succession certificate to the Executive Engineer in the Electricity Distribution Division of the first respondent. Since no action was initiated, the petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate, Allahabad under Section 6 of the Act. At that stage, on 11 September 2013, the first respondent awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner by way of compensation. The District Magistrate by an order dated 2 January 2014 partly allowed the claim and directed the payment of compensation quantified as Rs.1 lac after giving due credit for the amount of Rs.20,000/-, which has already been paid. The petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation that has been awarded.
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 was enacted by Parliament to provide for public liability insurance for the purpose of providing immediate relief to persons affected by accidents occurring while handling any hazardous substance. Section 2(a) of the Act defines the expression 'accident', as follows:
"(a) "accident" means an accident involving a fortuitous or sudden or unintended occurrence while handling any hazardous substance resulting in continuous or intermittent or repeated exposure to death of, or injury to, any person or damage to any property but does not include an accident by reason only of war or radio-activity;"
The expression 'handling' is defined in Section 2(c), thus:
"(c) "handling", in relation to any hazardous substance, means the manufacture, processing, treatment, package, storage, transportation by vehicle, use, collection, destruction, conversion, offering for sale, transfer or the like of such hazardous substance;"
Section 3 of the Act provides for the payment of no fault compensation in the following terms:
"3. Liability to give relief in certain cases on principle of no fault (1) Where death or injury to any person (other than a workman) or damage to any property has resulted from an accident, the owner shall be liable to give such relief as is specified in the Schedule for such death, injury or damage.
(2) In any claim for relief under sub-section (1) (hereinafter referred to in this Act as claim for relief), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death, injury or damage in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of any person.
Explanation: For the purpose of this section--
(i) "workman" has the meaning assigned to it in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923);
(ii) "injury" includes permanent total or permanent partial disability or sickness resulting out of an accident."
Section 6 of the Act provides for the making of an application for a claim for relief. Section 6 is in the following terms:
"6. Application for claim for relief (1) An application for claim for relief may for made--
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury;
(b) by the owner of the property to which the damage has been caused;
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by such person or owner of such property or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
PROVIDED that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for relief, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector and shall be in such form, contain such particulars and shall be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed.
(3) No application for relief shall be entertained unless it is made within five years of the occurrence of the accident."
Under Section 7(1) of the Act, on the receipt of an application under Section 6(1), the Collector is empowered to hold an enquiry consistent with the principles of natural justice, into the claim and to make an award determining the amount of relief which appears to him to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom such amount of relief shall be paid. Under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act, the Collector is empowered to follow such summary procedure as he thinks fit for holding the enquiry. Under sub-section (5) of Section 7, the Collector has all the powers of a Civil Court inter alia for taking the evidence on oath and for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and for compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects as well as for such other purposes, as may be prescribed. Section 8(1) of the Act makes it clear that the right to claim relief under sub-section (1) of Section 3 in respect of death or injury to any person or damage to any property shall be in addition to any other right to claim compensation in respect thereof under any other law for the time being in force.
Under Section 3(1) of the Act the compensation is based on the no fault liability principle where death or injury has been caused to any person, other than a workman, or damage to any property has resulted from an accident. The expression 'accident' is defined to mean an accident involving a fortuitous or sudden or unintended occurrence while handling any hazardous substance resulting in continuous or intermittent or repeated exposure to death, among other things. The expression 'handling' in Section 2(c) of the Act in relation to a hazardous substance includes use, transfer or the like of such hazardous substance. 'Hazardous substance' is defined under Section 2(d) of the Act to have the same meaning as under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1896. Section 2(e) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 defines the expression 'hazardous substance' as follows:
"(e) "hazardous substance" means any substance or preparation which, by reason of its chemical or physico-chemical properties or handling is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or the environment;"
Electricity is clearly a hazardous substance covered by the definition contained in Section 2(e) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and anr. v. Kaleemullah and ors.3, following an earlier decision in U.P. Electricity Board and another v. District Magistrate, Dehradun and others4, held that the electricity would fall within the expression 'hazardous substance'.
In the present case, an application was moved by the petitioner to the Collector and District Magistrate under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. The facts, which have been pleaded by the petitioner, are not in dispute. There is no challenge on the part of the first respondent to the legality of the order passed by the Collector awarding compensation under the Act and, as we have noted, the challenge of the petitioner is to the quantum of compensation. In this regard, the order which has been passed by the Collector is completely bereft of any reason or justification for the award of compensation in the amount which the Collector found to be just and proper. The provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act empower the Collector to determine the amount of relief which appears to him to be just. Under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act the Collector is empowered to follow such summary procedure as he thinks fit, subject to any rule made in that behalf. Under sub-section (5) the Collector has been vested with the powers of a Civil Court for certain specific purposes. The award of compensation under Section 6 is not in the nature of an ex gratia. The Act recognises a statutory entitlement and imposes a corresponding statutory obligation. An Undertaking, which engages itself in the supply and distribution of electricity, cannot be unmindful of the serious hazard to life and property that may result as a consequence of its activities. The award of compensation under the Act has, therefore, to be construed to be in recognition of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Collector ought to have furnished a reasoned justification in quantifying the award of compensation following the well settled principles in that regard.
In this view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition and to remit the proceedings back to the Collector for a fresh assessment of the quantum of compensation payable under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act. We clarify that we have not set aside the findings of fact which are contained in the order of the Collector in regard to the nature of the incident and in regard to the liability to pay the compensation since there is no challenge before the Court to be considered at the behest of the first respondent. On remand, the Collector shall duly hear both the petitioner and the first respondent and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law quantifying the amount of compensation. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the meantime, we direct that any payment which has been made in compliance with the impugned order of the Collector, shall necessarily abide by the final result of the proceedings.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.10.2014 SKT/-
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ.) (P.K.S. Baghel, J.) Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice Hon'ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.
Disposed of.
For order, see our order of the date passed on the separate sheets (eight pages).
Order Date :- 28.10.2014 SKT/-
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ.) (P.K.S. Baghel, J.)