Kiranbala Dandapat And Four Ors.(s) vs Secretary, Grid Corporation Of Orissa Ltd. & Anr.(s)
Kiranbala Dandapat And Four Ors.(s) vs Secretary, Grid Corporation Of Orissa Ltd. & Anr.(s)

Kiranbala Dandapat And Four Ors.(s) vs Secretary, Grid Corporation Of Orissa Ltd. & Anr.(s)


citations: II (1998) ACC 273, 2000 ACJ 1286, AIR 1998 Ori 159

Bench: A Pasayat, S Datta

No. of Judges: 1

Law: Law of torts


  • One Krushna Chandra Dandapat (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) lost his life on account of electrocution on 21-10-1993. His widow and minor children have filed this writ application for a direction to the Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’) to compensate them.


  • On 21-10-1993, at about 6 a.m. the deceased had gone to his agricultural field to irrigate the land. A live high voltage 11 K.V. electric wire was lying on the field being disconnected from the pole.


  • When the deceased came in contact with it, he sustained burn injuries and became senseless. Immediately he was taken to Derabis P.H.C. but his condition became serious. He was shifted to Kendrapara Hospital where he breathed his last.


  • The matter was reported at Kendrapara Police Station basing upon which U.B. Case No. 55 dated 21-10-1993 was registered, Enquiry was conducted and it was clearly indicated that the death was due to electrocution. Compensation was claimed from the Corporation, but no heed was paid.




  • Shall lodging of writ petition after three years of incident be allowed and compensation be granted?
  • Does the incident account to act of God?
  • Is the incident account to negligence?



  • As the claim was lodged after the period of three years which is the prescribed period for claiming compensation. Additionally, a statutory body like the Corporation should not stand on technicalities, when the poor dependants of a electrocution victim are the claimants.


  • As an act of God provides no excuse, unless it is so unexpected that no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate the occurrence, having regard to the conditions of time and place known to be prevailing at.


  • The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would apply to the facts of the case and hence ampunt to negligence.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here