Orissa High Court Grants ₹2 Lakh Interim Compensation To Kin Of Labourer Who Died Of Electrocution In 2007

More than 18 years after a daily labourer succumbed to electrocution by stepping onto a live electric wire due to negligence of the power distribution company, the Orissa High Court has ordered an interim compensation of rupees two lakhs to the wife and sons of the deceased.

The Single Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held the company strictly liable for the unfortunate and avoidable death of the sole breadwinner of the family. He also observed –

“Distribution company had the statutory responsibility of distribution and supply of electricity in the locality, the court is of the considered view that by application of the principle of strict liability, the Opposite Parties- Distribution Company are strictly liable for the death of deceased and are liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.”

To put briefly the facts leading up to this litigation, the deceased Sanatan Nayak was proceeding to the market in the evening of July 06, 2007. He mistakenly came in contact with puddle of water which was charged with electricity since a live L.T. line wire was snapped due to extreme weather conditions and had fallen into the puddle of water on the road.

After stepping onto the same, he got electrocuted and sustained fatal injuries. Though he was immediately admitted in the District Headquater Hospital, Balasore, he was never on the mend thereafter. Subsequently, he lost his life.

The petitioners, who are the wife and three sons of the deceased, approached the opposite party power distribution company seeking compensation as negligence on their part took away the life of the deceased.

Even though by realising the mistake, the company provided a paltry sum to the family, it never granted the lump sum compensation amount. The petitioners served a legal notice to the opposite party company, but in vain. Therefore, this writ petition was instituted as the last recourse.

At the outset, the Court noted that that though counsel appearing for the power distribution company opposed the contentions made by the petitioners, but the company never filed a counter affidavit disputing the claims of the petitioners. Thus, by application of the 'doctrine of non-traverse', the Bench said, it can be presumed that the opposite party company admitted the facts pleaded by the petitioners by not specifically denying the same through a counter affidavit.

After analysing the admitted facts, the Court was of the considered view that there are sufficient materials on record, in the form of inquest report, post-mortem report and the final report submitted by the police under Section 174 of the CrPC, to hold that the death of the deceased was caused due to electrocution.

By relying upon the watershed ruling in Rylands v. Fletcher, which set the ground for the doctrine of 'strict liability', the Court held that the said rule essentially attaches the liability on the undertakers of the hazardous activities, to compensate for damages caused, irrespective of any carelessness on their part. The basis of liability is the 'foreseeable risk' inherent in the very nature of the activities.

Reliance was then placed upon landmark precedent on electrocution compensation, viz. M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Ors. (2002) and a coordinate Bench decision of the High Court in Dusmanta Samal v. State of Orissa (2025) to hold that the company had the statutory responsibility of distribution and supply of electricity in the locality and therefore, it is strictly liable for the death of the deceased.

So far as quantum of compensation was concerned, the attention of the Court was drawn to the OERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2020. Though the Regulations could not be applied in the present case due to their coming into operation much after the incident, still the Court borrowed the scale of compensation from such Rules.

Accordingly, the amount of interim compensation was fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) which shall also carry an interest rate of 8% from the date of incident to the date of actual payment, the default of which shall result in liability to pay interest @12%. Significantly, the petitioners were given liberty to pursue even higher compensation under the common law remedies.

Case Title: Smt. Umamani Nayak & Ors. v. CEO, TPNODL, Balasore & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 5875 of 2008

Date of Judgment: July 28, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Bijay Kumar Mohanty, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. L.K. Moharana, Advocate for TPNODL; Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate along with Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 100

Click Here To Read/Download Order