The Gauhati High Court has directed a power distribution company to treat a bereaved mother’s representation as a formal compensation claim under statutory regulations, emphasizing procedural compliance and the necessity of establishing licensee fault in electrical fatality cases. This ruling clarifies the administrative obligations of licensees under the Electricity Act, 2003, and reinforces the rights of victims’ families to timely, adjudicated relief.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kalpana Mahanta, seeks compensation for the death of her minor daughter, Himashree Das, who suffered fatal electrocution on 19.05.2024 while retrieving clothes from the terrace of a residential building in Guwahati. The incident occurred due to contact with a live high-voltage wire allegedly maintained by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL). The petitioner submitted a representation to the Managing Director of APDCL on 14.08.2025, seeking compensation under the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019. The representation remained unacknowledged and unaddressed, prompting the filing of this writ petition.
Key Facts
- The deceased, Himashree Das, was aged approximately 12 years at the time of the incident on 19.05.2024.
- The electrocution occurred at approximately 4:15 pm on the terrace of a building where the petitioner and her daughter were tenants.
- The victim was admitted to Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMC&H) and succumbed to burn injuries on 23.05.2024.
- An FIR was registered on 06.05.2024 (likely a typographical error; should be 23.05.2024 or shortly thereafter) concerning the incident.
- The petitioner submitted a written representation to the Managing Director of APDCL on 14.08.2025, which was received but not formally processed or responded to.
- The representation was not filed in Form B as prescribed under Annexure-II of the AERC Regulations, 2019.
- The Chief Electrical Inspector was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition.
Procedural History
- 19.05.2024: Electrical accident resulting in fatal injury to the petitioner’s daughter.
- 23.05.2024: Death of the victim confirmed.
- 06.05.2024: FIR registered (date appears inconsistent with incident date; likely meant 23.05.2024 or 24.05.2024).
- 14.08.2025: Representation submitted to Managing Director, APDCL.
- No formal response received from APDCL.
- 25.06.2026: Writ petition heard and judgment pronounced by the Gauhati High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the death resulted from negligence in maintenance of high-voltage infrastructure by APDCL. Contended that the failure to respond to the representation amounted to denial of statutory remedy under the AERC Regulations, 2019. Relied on the mandatory compensation framework under Schedule B and the 120-day payment window under Section 20.
Respondent No.1 (State of Assam): Appeared through counsel but did not contest the factual averments. Did not provide any evidence regarding fault, negligence, or prior adjudication.
Respondents No.2 - 4 (APDCL Officials): Did not appear before the Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Immediate payment of Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation for loss of life under Schedule B of the AERC Regulations, 2019.
- Interest at 12% per annum from 120 days after the date of accident (i.e., from 17.09.2024) until payment.
- A direction to APDCL to process the representation as a formal claim.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a representation submitted outside the prescribed Form B under the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019, can be treated as a valid compensation claim, and whether the licensee’s liability for compensation arises without a determination of fault or negligence by the Chief Electrical Inspector.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the AERC Regulations are remedial in nature and must be interpreted liberally to protect victims. The submission of a representation to the Managing Director, as permitted under Section 15(i), constitutes sufficient compliance. The failure to respond to the representation amounted to denial of statutory rights. Reliance was placed on Section 20, which mandates interest for delayed payment, implying that the claim must be adjudicated within the statutory timeframe.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel did not dispute the facts but did not advance any substantive legal counter-argument. No evidence was presented to refute the petitioner’s claim of negligence or to establish that the accident was not attributable to APDCL.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019, particularly Sections 5, 6, 15, 18, and 20. It noted that while Section 5 conditions liability on the accident being attributable to the fault or negligence of the licensee, Section 15 permits claims to be filed with the Managing Director. The Court observed that the petitioner’s representation, though not in Form B, was received by the appropriate authority and contained sufficient details to trigger an inquiry.
"The petitioner had not been informed as to the result of the said representation or any amount had been paid."
The Court emphasized that the absence of the Chief Electrical Inspector as a party precluded it from independently determining fault. However, it held that the licensee cannot evade its statutory duty by ignoring a representation submitted under Section 15(i). The Court further noted that Section 20’s interest provision presupposes a determination of liability and a delay in payment, reinforcing the need for timely adjudication.
The Court declined to grant compensation outright due to the absence of a fault determination but directed APDCL to treat the representation as an application in Form B and conduct a proper inquiry. The Court explicitly linked the obligation to pay interest under Section 20 to the outcome of this inquiry.
The Verdict
The writ petition is disposed of with directions. The Managing Director of APDCL shall treat the representation dated 14.08.2025 as a formal compensation application under Form B. If the inquiry concludes that the electrical accident was attributable to APDCL’s fault or negligence, compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 shall be paid to the petitioner, along with interest at 12% per annum from 17.09.2024 (120 days after 19.05.2024) until payment. If liability is not established, a speaking order rejecting the claim must be passed after obtaining a report from the Chief Electrical Inspector. The entire process must be completed within six months of the certified copy of this order being served on APDCL. The petitioner must submit the FIR, post-mortem report, and death certificate along with the certified copy.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Representation Can Substitute Formal Application Under Remedial Statutes
- Practitioners may now treat informal representations submitted to senior officials under Section 15(i) of the AERC Regulations as valid claims if they contain essential facts, even if not in Form B.
- Licensees cannot ignore such submissions on technical grounds; failure to respond constitutes procedural violation.
- The burden shifts to the licensee to initiate inquiry and obtain necessary reports (e.g., from Chief Electrical Inspector) to rebut claims.
Fault Determination Is Mandatory for Liability, But Not a Barrier to Adjudication
- Compensation under Schedule B is not automatic; liability requires proof of licensee fault or negligence.
- However, the absence of the Chief Electrical Inspector in proceedings does not preclude the licensee from conducting its own inquiry.
- Licensees must proactively obtain technical reports before rejecting claims - passive non-response is not lawful.
Interest Accrues Automatically Upon Delay, Not Upon Final Order
- Section 20’s 12% interest is triggered from the 121st day after the accident, regardless of whether liability has been determined.
- Practitioners should calculate interest from 120 days post-accident in all such claims and include it in the prayer, even if liability is contested.
- The Court’s direction to pay interest if fault is established confirms that interest is a statutory consequence of delay, not a discretionary award.
