1999 JTR(SC) 1077
2002 ACJ 337 ; 2000 AIR(SC) 3629 ; 1999 9 SCC 21 ; 2000 KHC 1925
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
West Bengal State Electricity Board
Versus
Sachin Banerjee
Decided on : September 19, 1999
The court clarified that the State Electricity Board cannot be held guilty of negligence when victims were electrocuted due to illegal hooking for theft of electricity.
Negligence - State Electricity Board - Observation regarding negligence deleted
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners objected to an observation in the impugned judgment that two victims had died because of the negligence of the petitioner State Electricity Board. The victims were electrocuted due to illegal hooking for theft of electricity.
Finding of the Court:
The court maintained the impugned order but deleted the observation regarding negligence of the State Electricity Board.
Issues: Observation of negligence by the State Electricity Board
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the victims were electrocuted due to illegal hooking for theft of electricity, and therefore the State Electricity Board cannot be held guilty of negligence.
Final Decision: Special leave petition is dismissed.
Negligence - State Electricity Board - Observation regarding negligence deleted
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners objected to an observation in the impugned judgment that two victims had died because of the negligence of the petitioner State Electricity Board. The victims were electrocuted due to illegal hooking for theft of electricity.
Finding of the Court:
The court maintained the impugned order but deleted the observation regarding negligence of the State Electricity Board.
Issues: Observation of negligence by the State Electricity Board
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the victims were electrocuted due to illegal hooking for theft of electricity, and therefore the State Electricity Board cannot be held guilty of negligence.
Final Decision: Special leave petition is dismissed.
Judgment
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, R. P. SETHI, J.
( 1 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that an ex gratia payment of rs. 50,000 by them to the heirs of each of the deceased persons is not being objected to by the petitioners. The only grievance of the petitioners relates to an observation in the impugned judgment that two victims had died because of the negligence of the petitioner State Electricity Board. Looking to the fact that the two victims were electrocuted because of an illegal hooking for the purpose of theft of electricity, the petitioners cannot be held guilty of negligence although they may have stated that there is a need for conducting dehooking raids more frequently.
( 2 ) LOOKING to the circumstances, although the impugned order is maintained, the observation that the two victims had died because of the negligence of the State electricity Board is deleted from the order.
( 3 ) WITH these observations, the special leave petition is dismissed.