1. Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri S. Abdul Matheen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APCPDCL.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

                  “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners towards damages and compensation for the death of the husband of the 1st petitioner i.e., Penumuchu Madhusudhana Rao on 24-12-2011 due to electrocution arising out of negligence and carelessness of the respondents and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of Justice.”

3. The facts as projected by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners are that Petitioner No.1 is the wife of late Sri Penumuchu Madhusudhana Rao; that Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters of Petitioner No.1; that the husband of Petitioner No.1, namely Sri Penumuchu Madhusudhana Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), met with an accidental death due to electrocution for which the present Writ Petition is filed seeking compensation from Respondent No.1; that it is stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the family of the deceased owned agricultural lands; that they also used to take lands on lease for cultivating Commercial crops such as Cotton, Chillis and Tobacco for their livelihood; that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family; that the deceased and Petitioner No.1 were blessed with four daughters; that the deceased, through his hard work, used to get a minimum income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, including all expenses incurred on agricultural activities; that on 24.12.2011, on the fateful day, the deceased went to fetch drinking water from the nearby Sivalayam Temple at about 4:00 a.m.; that while proceeding on the road, the   deceased came into contact with a snapped live electric wire (Pole No.SSS C1/S 527791), which was managed by the Official Respondents herein; and that upon coming into contact with the live electric wire, the husband of Petitioner No.1 (the deceased) had met with an instant death.

4. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that one Sri Penumuchu Koteswara Rao, who is the brother of the deceased had lodged a Complaint/FIR No.233/2011 on 24.12.2011; that an Inquest was conducted on 24.12.2011 (Ex.P.4); that the Post Mortem Certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Nandigama dated 24.12.2011 would disclose that the deceased had died due to „Respiratory arrest due to electric shock‟. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the death of the deceased occurred due to gross negligence on the part of Respondent No.1 and that while attending the agricultural work, the deceased would have worked up to 70 years of age and probably even thereafter; that the Writ Petitioners herein (wife and four daughters of the deceased) are entirely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. The Writ Petitioners contended that the deceased had a net income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum out of agricultural operations and that even if 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses, the remaining amount of Rs.1,33,300/- for the remaining 12 years (assuming that the deceased would continue to work up to 70 years of age), the total amount would come to about Rs.16,80,000/-. He would therefore submit that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to this amount due to negligent act of the Respondents. It is also stated that while the income for a period of 12 years would aggregate to Rs.16,18,000/-, the Writ Petitioners restricted their claim to Rs.5,00,000/- only.

5. Despite the fact that the Writ Petition has been filed on 26.12.2012, the Official Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein has not chosen to file their Counter-Affidavits. The docket of this Court would also indicate that this Court has granted several opportunities to the Respondents for filing Counter-Affidavits (06.06.2013, 27.06.2013, 12.07.2013, 29.07.2013, 22.08.2013 and 13.09.2013). Vide Order dated 13.09.2013, this Court had posted the Writ Petition for final hearing.

6. It transpires from the record that the Station House Officer, Kanchikacherla (Respondent No.4) had filed Counter-Affidavit on 14.08.2013. The Station House Officer, in the Counter-Affidavit, has stated that the Department of Home is not liable to pay compensation. This apart, the Station House Officer had merely repeated the contents of the Forensic Report, thereby confirming that the cause of death is by electrocution by coming into contact with the electric wire (from Pole No.SSS C1/S 527791) that is managed and maintained by Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

7. Sri Abdul Matheen, Ld. Junior Standing Counsel for the APCPDCL has submitted the Written Instructions in the form of Letter bearing Lr.No.EE/O/ RURAL/VJA/JAO/ADM/UI/D.No.2181/2025 dated 05.11.2025. He would submit that since ex gratia of Rs.1,00,000/- is paid by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and the same has been accepted by the Writ Petitioners, the Writ Petitioners are therefore, no more entitled for any compensation. In any case, the payment ex gratia of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Writ Petitioners and non-filing of the Counter Affidavit by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would indicate that the liability is admitted.

8. In addition to this objection as regards the payment of ex gratia, Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on judgment of the Ld. Single Judge of this composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Hanuman Das and another v. A.P. Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar District : 2012 (4) ALT 723. He has taken this Court through the Judgment to submit that unless negligence is established, victims of electrocution would not always be entitled for compensation. This Court has perused the facts of this case that is relied upon by Sri Abdul Matheen, Ld. Junior Standing Counsel.

9. The facts in Hanuman Das‟s case are that a boy who was studying in 3rd class, went along with his friends to one School situated in a locality and that while he was returning home all alone, he was playing with a cycle chain en route to home, which accidentally came in contact with the hanging transformer wire, as a result of which, the boy has received electric shock and died due to electrocution.

10. The facts in Hanuman Das‟s case are entirely different from the facts in the instant case. In the case of Hanuman Das, there is negligence on the part of the boy, who was swinging cycle chain on a street that accidentally came into contact with a live wire. Whereas, in the instant case, the deceased died while simply walking towards the well nearby the temple as he came in contact with a live electric wire that got snapped from Poll No.SSS C1/S 527791 maintained by the Official Respondents. Therefore, the facts in the instant case would clearly establish that the snapping of electric wire that was hanging till the ground level had come in contact with the deceased during the wee hours and therefore, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would „strictly liable‟ for this incident.

11. The plea that the Writ Petitioners are not entitled for any compensation due to advance payment of ex gratia cannot be accepted by this Court inasmuch as the compensatory jurisprudence has marched ahead in fixing the strict liability and that, as discussed above in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari : (2002) 2 SCC 162, the liability is a strict liability and it differs from the liability which arises on account of negligence or fault. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the Defendant shall be held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precaution.

ANALYSIS:

12. There is not much dispute about the facts stated herein above to the effect that the deceased had died due to „Respiratory arrest due to electric shock‟. Admittedly, the deceased died because he came into contact with a live electric wire hanging from electrical Poll No.SSS C1/S 527791, resulting in instantaneous death. The Writ Petitioners have contended that the deceased is involved in agricultural activity and that his yearly income is about Rs.2,00,000/- from agricultural activities and that, since his age being 58 years, as on the date of the death, after 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses of the deceased, he would be contributing about Rs.1,33,000/- per annum to the family and having an expectancy of 12 years for his inability to still work in the fields, the Writ Petitioner would be entitled to Rs.16,18,000/-. The Writ Affidavit would also indicate that the Writ Petitioners are confining their claim to Rs.5,00,000/- as onetime payment.

13. From the above facts, the following issues are framed:

                  (1) Whether the death was occasioned on account of coming into contact the hanging live electric wire that is managed and maintained by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3? If so, whether the said Respondents are strictly liable to pay compensation?

                  (2) If Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are liable for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation that the Writ Petitioners are entitled?

14. ISSUE No.1:

                  Whether the death was occasioned on account of coming into contact the hanging live electric wire that is managed and maintained by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3? If so, whether the said Respondents are strictly liable to pay compensation?

                  The material placed on record is perused by this Court. The FIR No.233/2011 (Ex.P.3) is lodged by Sri Penumuchu Madhusudhana Rao, who is the brother of the deceased on 24.12.2011 (the date of occurrence). Nextly, the Inquest Report (Ex.P.4 colly) is also placed on record. The Post Mortem Certificate issued by the Civil Asst. Surgeon (Ex.P.4 colly), is also on record which indicates that the deceased died due to „Respiratory arrest occasioned by electric shock‟. The Counter-Affidavit filed by the Station House Officer (Respondent No.4) does not indicate anything to the contrary and would therefore go to show that the death of the deceased was due to electric shock. The material on record would also disclose that the deceased came into contact with live electric wire at Poll No.SSS C1/S 527791. This apart, it transpires from the record that the Official Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have paid ex gratia of Rs.1,00,000/-. Despite granting several opportunities, the Official Respondents belonging to the Department of Electricity have not evinced any interest in filing Counter-Affidavit. Therefore, there is no rebuttal on any of the facts including the avocation of the deceased, to the effect that he was involved in agricultural activities. In this view of the matter, it can be safely assumed that the death was occasioned on account of negligence of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and therefore, the said Respondents alone are liable to pay compensation in addition to the ex gratia which is already paid.

15. In the above premise, it should be held that the deceased died due to coming into contact with live electrical wire from electrical poll No.SSS C1/S 527791 that is maintained and managed by the Official Respondent Nos.1 to

                  3. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the Official Respondents shall have the responsibility to pay the compensation to the kith and kin of the deceased [Please see Railway Board v. Chandrima Das : (2000) 2 SCC 465 – Para 9 to 11].

16. ISSUE No.2:

                  If Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are liable for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation that the Writ Petitioners are entitled ?

                  As indicated above, there is no doubt about the fact that the deceased is 58 years of age. The Writ Petitioners have not placed any kind of material on record to indicate that the deceased was either the owner of farm land or whether he is the tenant. The Writ Petitioners have not furnished any information with regard to the extent of land that is involved in agricultural activity at the behest of the deceased. Except merely stating that the deceased was involved in agricultural operations and that the family of the deceased owns agricultural land and further that the deceased also used to take lands on lease for making earning, the Writ Petitioners have not placed on record even a scrap of paper to show the ownership of either of the deceased, or of the family members of the deceased nor have they filed any other material on record to indicate that the deceased owned any agricultural land. Nevertheless, since the deceased is a resident of Moguluru village and that the local Station House Officer, even during the course of investigation, has not found anything to the contrary, this Court can safely assume that the source of livelihood for the deceased was only through agricultural operations.

17. Under these circumstances, it is a settled law that in the absence of any information (either documentary or otherwise), the Court is required to go on certain assumptions and presumptions for the purpose of arriving at the just compensation for the death of the person on account of the negligence of the Respondents. It is also settled law that in the absence of any material indicating the approximate income of the deceased, minimum wage which the deceased would be entitled basing on his avocation may be applied/followed [Please see : (i) Jakir Hussein v. Sabir and Others : (2015) 7 SCC 252 – Para No.14 (ii) Chandra alias Chanda alias Chandraram and Another v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Others : (2022) 1 SCC 198 – Para No.9 and (iii) Kubrabibi and Others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1855 – Para Nos.6 and 7].

18. For this purpose, it is settled law that in such cases the multiplier method may also be applied in fixing compensation as it applied under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Please see: M.S. Grewal and Another v. Deep Chand Sood and Others: (2001) 8 SCC 151 - Para Nos. 31 to 36].

19. It is settled law that the principles applicable in assessing just compensation for the victims involved in motor vehicle accidents is suggested for assessing just compensation for victims of electrocution as well [Please See (i) Nirmala Nayak and others v. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. And others: 2005 SCC OnLine Ori 74 – Para Nos.15 to 17 (ii) Paramjit Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab and Others : 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 1035 – Para Nos.19 to 21 (iii) The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. R. Bakkiavathy: 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 1622 – Para No.24 (iv) Alamelu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others : 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 913 (4) – Para Nos.16 to 19 (v) Kabita Mondal (Gayen) v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Others : 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 505 – Para Nos.13 to 18 (vi) Rameshwari and Others v. Junior/Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Others : 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 607 – Para No.26]

20. In the instant case, the deceased could be categorized as an adult agriculturist or at least as an agriculture-laborer. The Counter-Affidavit filed by the Station House Officer (Respondent No.4) would indicate that the deceased is survived by the widow and four daughters. It is stated in Para-3 of the Writ Affidavit that the deceased used to grow commercial crops like Cotton, Chilies and Tobacco. However, not a scrap of paper has been filed to show that the Writ Petitioner was involved in agricultural activity and raising commercial crops. In the normal course, it would have been a matter of trial in a motor vehicle accident case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But, there is no statute as such dealing with cases of electrocution. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed and it is also maintainable. It is not out of place to state that a Ld. Single Judge of High Court of Kolkata had opined that there is a need to enact a legislation with regard to compensation in cases of electrocution in Kabita Mondal (Gayen) v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Others : 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 505.

21. The legal preposition of „strict liability‟ was introduced for the first time by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the cases of electrocution in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari : (2002) 2 SCC 162, wherein, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held in Para Nos. 7 and 8 as under:

                  “7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.

                  8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.”

                  (Emphasis supplied)

22. This is a departure from the earlier principle that in cases of disputed questions of fact, it is not always necessary to apply the principle of strict liability. Therefore, after the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari : (2002) 2 SCC 162, strict liability has to be applied in fixing the liability in the cases of electrocution.

QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:

23. Ultimately, in cases of accidental deaths, where the victim is an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has also applied a method by which the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has fixed an income of Rs.6,000/- per month, thereby, aggregating to Rs.72,000/- per annum. In the case of Ranjeet and Another v. Abdul Kayam Neb and another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Para No.5 and 6 had held as under:

                  “5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court both manifestly erred in law in refusing to grant any compensation to the claimants.

                  6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we would have remitted the matter to the Tribunal for determination of the compensation to be payable to the claimants. However, looking to the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2006 and now, we are in 2025, we consider it appropriate to determine the compensation as under considering the evidence on record:

                  Since the deceased was an agricultural labourer, taking the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- i.e. Rs. 72,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses the dependency comes to Rs. 48,000/- per annum. Now applying the multiplier of 15 as the deceased was aged about 38 years, the loss comes to (Rs. 48,000/- × 15) Rs. 7,05,000/-. Adding 40% towards future prospects the amount comes to (Rs. 7,05,000/- + Rs. 2,82,000/-) Rs. 9,87,000/-. To this we add Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses which amount to Rs. 10,02,000/- which amount shall be payable with interest of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition.

                 

                  Note: The aforesaid compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its payment.”

24. Even prior to the Ranjeet’s case, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had dealt with the issue of fixation of daily income for an agricultural labourer in the case of Laxmidhar Nayak and Others v. Jugal Kishore Behera : (2018) 1 SCC 746. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held in Para Nos. 5 and 6 as under:

                  “5. PW 1 in his evidence stated that Chanchali Nayak was earning Rs 35 per day as wages out of the labour work. Deceased Chanchali Nayak was an agricultural labourer. The Tribunal has taken her income @ Rs 25 per day and assessed the monthly income at Rs 650 per month. It is quite improbable that a labourer would be available for such a small amount of Rs 25 per day. The wages fixed by the Tribunal for the daily labourer at Rs 25 per day and the monthly income at Rs 650 is too low. The reasoning of the Tribunal that a lady labourer may not get engagement daily is not acceptable. Even though works like cutting of paddy and other agricultural labour may not be available on all days throughout the year, in rural areas other kinds of work are available for a labourer. Deceased Chanchali Nayak even though was said to be earning only Rs 35 per day at that time, over the years, she would have earned more. In our view, deceased Chanchali Nayak, being a woman and mother of three children, would have also contributed her physical labour for maintenance of household and also taking care of her children. The High Court as well as the Tribunal did not keep in view the contribution of the deceased in the household work, being a labourer and also maintaining her husband, her daily income should be fixed at Rs 150 per day and Rs 4500 per month.

                  6. Taking income from the agricultural labour work at Rs 3000 per month and Rs 1500 per month for the household work, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs 4500 per month deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, contribution of deceased towards the family is calculated at Rs 3000 per month and Rs 36,000 per annum. Deceased Chanchali Nayak was aged 42 years. As per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the age groups 40-45 years multiplier is “15”. As per Sarla Verma v. DTC [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , for the age groups 41-45 years multiplier to be adopted is “14”. Therefore, the multiplier of “12” adopted by the Tribunal and the High Court may not be correct. Hence, the multiplier of “12” adopted may not be correct. Adopting the multiplier of “14” loss of dependency is calculated at Rs 5,04,000 (Rs 3000 × 12 × 14).”

25. It is to be noticed that while the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had fixed a monthly income for an agricultural labourer as Rs.3,000/- in addition to the grant of Rs.1,500/- for the other household works, in Ranjeet’s case, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had fixed the income of an agricultural labourer as Rs.6,000/- per month, thereby aggregating to Rs.72,000/- per annum.

26. By adducing the above principles in Ranjeet’s case and Laxmidhar Nayak’s case, the entitlement of compensation to the Writ Petitioners is calculated as under:

CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION