BEFORE THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT AHMEDABAD. Petition No.125/2003

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT AHMEDABAD Petition No.125/2003 In the matter of: Death of five innocent citizens due to electrocution in two separate cases. Petitioner : Consumer Education and Research Society, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. Represented by : S/Shri K.K.Bajaj & K.S.Bhatt Versus Opponent : 1. The General Manager (Commercial) Gujarat Electricity Board, Vadodara. Represented by : Shri U.V.Gupte. 2. The Chief Electrical Inspector, Gandhinagar. Represented by : Learned Advocate Shri Premal Joshi. CORAM: Shri K.P.Gupta, Member(F) Shri Manmohan, Member (T) JUDGMENT [1] The petitioner has filed the present petition for the following prayers: (i) (ii) (iii) To direct Respondent no.1 to submit complete report of both the accidents. To direct Respondent no.1 to submit technical report on nonfunctioning of the protective system. To direct respondent nos.1 and 2 to submit report for not providing guard-wires on HT cables as per rules. Page 1 of 42

2 (iv) (v) To direct respondent no.1 to provide heavy and suitable compensation to the family of deceased persons. To direct GEB to award adequate costs to the petitioner for filing this application. [2] The brief facts as mentioned in the petition are as under: The Society is mainly devoted to the promotion and protection of consumer interest through complaint handling, publication, legal research, media and effective uses of legal processes. CERS had learnt from the local newspapers dated 18 th and 19 th Sept.2002 about the death of five innocent persons at two different places of Junagadh District in Gujarat due to electrocution and dropping of HT/ LT cable of GEB. In the first accident, 3 members of one family died due to electrocution at around 3 am on 17 th Sept.2002 due to dropping of HT/ LT cable at the residential locality of Bhimpara town. The live overhead cable passing over the house fell in the compound of deceased persons residence and the system has not tripped due to failure of automatic switching of the incoming breaker and cutting off the supply. At Village Rabarika in Visavadar Taluka, one person riding on the motor cycle came in contact with live wire and died on the spot. After about half an hour one more person came in contact with this wire and got electrocuted as the live wire continued to remain on the road. In both the accidents the live HT cable has touched the ground and the system/ feeder has not tripped on protection. This is a serious matter for the respondent whose negligence and carelessness has taken lives of five innocent citizens. The Chief Electrical Inspector from the Deptt. of Energy, Govt. of Gujarat is also equally responsible for both these accidents under Rule 91 (1) of Indian Electricity Rules,1956. The petitioner requested the Commission to demand the details of measures taken by its deptt. (Govt. of Gujarat) to safeguard the lives of general public and failure of the protective systems. As per newspaper report there were no such guarding wires in overhead line Page 2 of 42

3 otherwise the cable would not have dropped on the ground and killed five people. The respondent should pay heavy compensation to the members of bereaved family of deceased persons as per the Motor Vehicles Act All the deceased have died as a result of negligence of the respondent. They are bound to pay compensation to the relatives of the deceased families for the loss suffered by them. Therefore, the present petition is filed. [3] The Commission issued notice to the GEB and GEB has filed reply contending inter alia, that the main grievance ventilated by the petitioner before this Hon ble Commission is in respect of death of five citizens caused due to electrocution. For the electrocution cases, as alleged by the petitioner, the petition came to be filed by the CERS and since the matter in issue pertains to the tortuous act, it pertains to the personal rights of the citizens and as per the settled principles of law, personal rights die with the person and the legal heir may prefer legal proceedings for the damage occurred to the legal representative due to death of his/ their relative due to the tortuous act of the State or the public authority. So far as the provision of Section 1(a) of the Fatal Accident Act,1855 is concerned, only the family members as defined in the said section may be having right to bring a civil suit or to take appropriate action in the nature of damages or compensation and that too, before the appropriate civil court by invoking section 9 of the Civil Procedure, This Commission may not have jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, as there is misjoinder of cause of action. Different prayers including the prayer for compensation have been mixed up. If there is misjoinder of cause of action i.e. prayers of different nature are mixed up in one proceeding, then as per the settled position of law, such proceeding deserves to be dismissed since it would be against the principle of Civil Law. Page 3 of 42

4 It is not true that the said incident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the GEB in maintaining electricity lines. The petitioner has no locus standi to agitate the said issue, as the appropriate proceedings under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code have to be preferred before appropriate forum. This Commission may not have the jurisdiction to direct the GEB to make a detailed report in respect of safety standards maintained by the GEB particularly in respect of the aforesaid two alleged incidents as it will affect prejudicially the right of the GEB to lead evidence before the Civil Court. The GEB has maintained all the safety standards. So far as the incident which occurred at Bhimpura is concerned, detailed report was made by the representative of the respondent no.2 and the said report reveals that the incident did not occur due to negligence on the part of the GEB but it seems that the electricity lines were tried to be mishandled and, therefore, it is a self inflicted blow and self inflicted problem which seems to have occurred while playing mischief with the electricity line. So far as the 2 nd incident which occurred at Rabarika village in Visvadar taluka is concerned, the said matter is subjudice and, therefore, the present petition qua this incident will also not be maintainable. The GEB had adopted overall safety standards as per the relevant provisions of rules and regulations in the entire State of Gujarat and, therefore, this petition can not be used as a device and the GEB can not be compelled to go into the details of the safety standards and their policy decisions in this regard. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition should be dismissed. [4] The petition was kept for hearing on and the commission had heard Mr.Manubhai Shah on behalf of the petitioner regarding the admissibility of the matter which pertains to two accidents, one at Bhimpara Town in Una Taluka and the other at Rabarika village in Visavader Taluka, in which GEB is involved, the Commission ordered Page 4 of 42

5 issue of notices to the opponents returnable on and the next date of hearing was fixed on [5] On , the commission heard Learned Counsel Mr.Nirav Majmudar, appearing on behalf of GEB and learned counsel Mr.Premal Joshi appearing on behalf of Chief Electrical Inspector. Both the counsels questioned the maintainability of the petition and they had put forward their arguments that the commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Shri Manubhai Shah, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the commission does have the jurisdiction under the provisions of section 22 of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act,1998 and his organization was concerned with the safety and the issue of compensation should not be overplayed because it was only a part of enforcement of safety standards. After hearing the parties, the Commission was of the opinion that it is desirable to decide the jurisdictional issue as well as the issue regarding locus standi of the petitioner organization raised by the opponents and therefore, the commission ordered all the parties to file their arguments on these issues in writing in order to enable the commission to appreciate the submissions made by them and the matter was kept for hearing on [6] Thereafter, the petitioner went on filing submissions one after another till The main petition contains two cases and the second submission is for seventeen cases. The third submission was for two cases and the fourth and final case was for three cases and each case is preceded by a list of attached documents covering (1) the Police Investigation Report (2) Chief Electrical Inspector s Inspection Report, (3) Date-wise information of the incident, (4) Formula regarding compensation and (5) information regarding any civil suit filed, etc. The remedial measures proposed by Chief Electrical Inspector are as under: Page 5 of 42

6 Proper and efficient earthing should be done as per rule 90 of I.E.Rules, Regular maintenance should be done as per rule 90 of I.E.Rules,1956. Guarding should be provided as per Rule 92 of I.E.Rules,1956. Proper supervision and safety measures should be taken during maintenance work. Working should be done only after isolating of lines or apparatus as case may be. Construction below the line should be restricted and safe distance from the line should be maintained. Appropriate size of Fuse and Isolating apparatus should be utilized Automatic switch off in case of snapping of live conductor wire. [7] The commission heard the matter on On that day, Shri K.K.Bajaj and Shri K.S.Bhatt were present on behalf of the petitioner and Shri U.V.Gupte was present on behalf of GEB and the Learned Advocate Shri Premal Joshi was present on behalf of Chief Electrical Inspector at the time of hearing. The representatives of the parties submitted as under: 7.1 Shri K.S.Bhatt, submitted that the CERS had learnt from the local newspapers dated 18 th and 19 th September,2002 about the death of five innocent persons at two different places of Junagadh District in Gujarat due to electrocution and dropping of HT/LT cable of GEB. In the first accident, 3 members of one family died due to electrocution at around 3 a.m. on 17 th September,2002 due to dropping of HT/LT cable at the residential locality of Bhimpara town. The live overhead wire was passing over the house of the deceased and the system has not tripped due to failure of automatic system for switching of the incoming breaker and cutting off the supply. The opponent should submit a detailed report Page 6 of 42

7 about the incident providing technical reasons for not cutting off the supply on protection. The second tragedy occurred at Rabarika Village in Visavadar taluka where a live wire was found on the road and one person riding the motor cycle came in contact with live wire and died on the spot. After about half an hour one more person came in contact with this wire and got electrocuted as the live wire continued to remain on the road. Shri Bhatt submitted that in both the accidents the live HT cable has touched the ground but the system/ feeder has not tripped on automatic protection. He also quoted Section 22 (2e) of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act,1998 as at the time of filing the petition, provisions of the said Act were in force. He also drew attention to the provisions in the Indian Electricity Rules,1956 and submitted that the Chief Electrical Inspector from the Deptt. of Energy, Govt. of Gujarat is also equally responsible for both these accidents under Rule 91 (1) of Indian Electricity Rules,1956. He further submitted that as per newspaper reports, there were no such guard wires in overhead line otherwise the cable would not have dropped on the ground and killed 5 people. He also drew attention of the Commission to Madras High Court Judgment which is reported in AIR 1984 Mad 201. The judgment inter alia observes as follows:- Over-head electric wires carrying heavy load of electric energy are highly dangerous and if any human being or animal comes into contact with the same, the consequences are fatal. Hence great care and caution are expected of the Electricity Board in laying, installing and maintaining overhead wires so that the wires do not fall down. If such a thing happens a prima facie inference can be drawn that there has been carelessness or negligence on the part of the Electricity Board in transmitting electric energy or in maintaining the transmission lines. The Electricity Board has also to take precaution against dangers of live wires snapping and falling down under unforeseen circumstances by Page 7 of 42

8 providing for automatic disconnection of supply of electrical energy, etc. etc. He also invited the attention of the Commission towards section 17 subsection (r) and sections 42 & 43 of the State Act wherein standard of performance of supply of electricity is mentioned and sections 57 and 59 of the Electricity Act,2003 regarding standards of performance of licensee. He also gave other examples of deaths due to electrocution where some persons died in Dhari Taluka, Dist: Amreli due to falling of live wire from grid line. He also showed picture of fallen wire and dead bodies of animals. He also submitted that 15 persons died in the year 2003 at Una, Dist: Junagadh and 2 persons who died in In similar electrocutions, one woman of 37 years old died at Sihor in Bhavnagar District in the month of September,2003, one person died in Village Mandal District Ahmedabad in the month of May,2004, one person died in the month of June,2004 on Narol-Sarkhej Highway road, 3 persons died at Dhroll in Jamnagar District in the month of July,2004 and one person died in the month of August,2004 in Dhanpur Taluka. He also invited attention of the Commission towards section 161 of the Electricity Act,2003 and requested the Commission to allow the petition. 7.2 The Learned Advocate Shri Premal Joshi on behalf of CEI, submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi and the issue regarding jurisdiction of the Hon ble Commission to the petitions (other than determining the amount of compensation) is not challenged by the opponent. According to the information given to him by GEB, in fact, the deceased in the first case of 17 th September,2002 were trying to tamper with the live wire and there is a detailed report of the CEI. He had got date-wise information and Dy.Engineer had reported the facts of the incident on the same day to CEI. He also invited attention of the Commission towards section 9 of Civil Procedure Code and provisions of Page 8 of 42

9 Bombay Stand Act and he submitted that only the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to award the compensation to the dependents. 7.3 Shri U.V.Gupte, representative of GEB submitted that there is an FIR in the Police station and the police had also investigated the incident and the Electrical Inspector had also made an enquiry and there is also a Panchnama made by the Police. 7.4 In view of above submissions made by the representatives of the parties, the information regarding the live wires, safety measures taken by the GEB and the inquiry of the Electrical Inspector were required for the adjudication of the petition. Hence, the commission ordered CEI and GEB to furnish information regarding investigation done by the Police and to supply a copy of the FIR and to submit a report of enquiry by the Chief Electrical Inspector; the Panchnama drawn by the police, information regarding safety and protection devices and guarding measures undertaken by the GEB; date-wise information of the incident and copy of the report made by the concerned Dy.Engineer to the concerned Electrical Inspector; finding of the CEI and formula regarding the compensation and information regarding the suits, if any filed by the heirs of the deceased or injured in any civil court in that connection with a copy to the petitioner. The commission also ordered GEB to furnish similar information in respect of similar electrocution accidents. [8] Thereafter, the GEB filed submissions on contending inter alia that it is a well settled principle of law that once the main application is being tendered, without there being any further details straightaway, the scope of the main application can never be permitted to be widened/ enlarged. It seems that the basic principle of law seems to have been totally ignored by the petitioner while filing the submissions, one after another. As and when the cases of electrocution take place, in a prescribed Proforma, the necessary details are always being filled in and Page 9 of 42

10 Proforma is always prepared by the concerned employees/ engineers of the respondent no.1 authority and that too after detailed study of the place of incident and after considering the case of electrocution, proper care is always being taken to see to it that no incident may take place again in future and on all the occasions, as and when electrocution cases are reported before the concerned authority, all the necessary precautions are always checked and reasons for electrocution are always being gone into by the concerned expert of the line. Even in the case of electrocution due to negligence on the part of the victim, the necessary detailed examination and investigation is always being carried out and the report is being prepared and submitted to Electrical Inspector as per the Rule 44 of Electricity Rules,1956 and police complaint is also lodged for the investigation. 8.1 The concerned Electrical Inspector also carried out the investigation in detail as and when such kind of incidents were reported. The Electrical inspector also (after the investigation) gives directives to GEB in several cases, if fault is on GEB part. The GEB also takes necessary step to reduce such accidents in future. 8.2 The safety standards are the main priority for the respondent no.1 who is much more concerned about the observance of the safety measures. The respondent no.1 has always taken all the necessary steps in this regard. As and when the Commission lays down the safety standard and/or parameter, the GEB authorities would certainly satisfy those requirements also and would follow the same. 8.3 The opponent no.1 has made submission to main petition as under: Fatal electrical accidents of five citizens as per Jansatta daily newspaper dt in Amreli and Junagadh Districts: Page 10 of 42

11 On fatal accident occurred at Village Bhimpura, Ta. Una, Dist: Junagadh, to three persons, namely (1) Shri K.R.Sankhat (2) Smt. L.K.Sankhat (3) V.R.Sankhat. Reasons of accident: In the afore- said cases, the accident occurred due to snapping neutral conductor and these victims came in contact with live wire and received shock and died. GEB overhead lines are laid considering factor of safety as per the IE rules and regulations. All the protective systems were provided in phase wire on both the sides, whereas in this case, neutral wire was broken in which as per standard practice, protective devices are not required hence not connected. In this case, the snapped conductor was neutral wire hence protection system had not operated. Joint inspection has been carried out by the Electrical Inspector and the GEB on As per the Investigation report of Electrical Inspector, the death of person was due to electrocution but victim may got electrocution by other sources and the same is not on account of GEB s fault. The accident has not occurred due to broken conductor of neutral wire of L.T. line. In the detailed investigation of Electrical Inspector, there was no current flow from neutral wire but the other possibility is that the consumer was trying to do illegal operation. Electrical Inspector had suggested to carry out separate investigation to know exact cause of accident of this case through Police Department. The Deputy Supdt. Of Police, Junagadh has collected piece of conductor on and sent to forensic laboratory for deciding whether it was cut by some instrument or snapped by burning. Report from forensic laboratory is not yet received. As per CEI report it was not a fault on the part of GEB. However, same can be decided on receipt of investigation report of Police Deptt. Page 11 of 42

12 Action taken: For preventing such accidents again, the conductor was replaced and the concerned persons were instructed to carry out periodic maintenance. As there is no road crossing or telephone line crossing the guard wire for the line is not required as per IE Rules,1956. Compensation: Not paid EE (O&M), GEB, Una has written a letter and also approached the deceased s brother to submit the required documents (duly signed) for compensation but the same have not been submitted by the family members of victim. After receiving all documents, procedure for giving compensation will be carried out as per Board s norms. 8.4 On , fatal accident occurred at Village Rabarika, Tal Visavadar. Reason of Accident: 11 KV line conductor slipped from disc insulator on T/C DP where G.O. switch is provided. The slipped conductor was hanging at about 2 to 3 ft above the ground with DO jumper near Visavadar Rabarika road near Rabarika Village. As conductor was hanging with DO Jumper at about 2 ft. above the ground level, and was not lying on ground, the feeder breaker once tripped, but it was then charged by operator and line stood OK. The live wire was actually not broken but slipped from disc anchor due to frequent operation of GO switch. The protection system had operated when accident took place. At that time, the victim Shri C.H.Patel who was passing on the road on his motor cycle near above T/C and he came in contact with the hanging 11 KV conductor, he got an electric shock and met with fatal accident. Page 12 of 42

13 Thereafter another person Shri R.V. Patel passed near above T/C on the road on his motor cycle and he came in contact with the above hanging 11 KV conductor also got an electric shock and died. The protection system did not operate when accident occurred due to hanging of conductor above the ground. The distance of line wire was as per IE Rules before the conductor slipped from the Disc anchor and it was hanging with DO Jumper at about two feet above the ground. Road crossing guarding was not provided due to DP structure of T/C and Kachha Road of Agricultural area and village. Action taken: (1) For preventing accident again, the conductor was replaced; maintenance carried out and instructions issued to carry out periodic maintenance of line. (2) Guarding was provided by erecting new PSC pole near the road crossing. Compensation: Consumer has filed civil suit No.213/02 & 214/02 before Junagadh Civil Court for payment of compensation. 8.5 The opponent no.1 has also filed submission to second supplementary submission, third supplementary submission & fourth supplementary submission of the petitioner but the main petition is only for two incidents and, therefore, we do not find it proper to mention about it in the present order as the copy of the submission is already furnished by the GEB to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner can know about the said incidents. 8.6 Total 29 electrical accidents have taken place and compensations are paid in 2 cases and in 10 cases, civil suits have been filed and therefore Page 13 of 42

14 compensation is not paid by the GEB and in 11 cases, compensation is not paid due to non-submission of required documents and in 6 cases, the victims are not entitled to get compensation as they happened in private premises. 8.7 The main reasons for the accidents are: i) Negligence on the part of the victim as they had not observed the safety measures. ii) Fault and failure in GEB system due to heavy rain, cyclone, etc. iii) Fault in private electrical installation. 8.8 The GEB has taken actions to attend the fault/ lacuna in the system and instructed all field offices to take suitable remedial actions to prevent such accidents in future. Norms for payment of compensation in case of fatal accidents of human beings due to electrocution and accident involving animal life is worked out as per their distribution circular No.424, 668 on the lines of award of Bai Nanda s case as given in Distribution Circular No.OM;CR;79: 7A:JDM:218 dated The Board (GEB) makes adhoc payment as immediate relief subject to adjustment when final payment of compensation is made. The adhoc payment of Rs.10,000/- to legal heirs of deceased is made without any undue delay. This amount of adhoc payment is adjusted at the time of making the final payment. It is the policy of the Board to pay ex-gratia amount to the victim s dependents/ heirs in case of fatal electrical accident to human being and to owner in case of animals. In view of these, the opponent no.1 has requested for disposing of the petition. 8.9 The GEB has produced details of electrical accidents with reference to the main petition No.125/2003, second submission in petition No.125/2003, third submission in petition No.125/2003 as well as fourth submission in petition No125/2003. The GEB had also produced copy of the Distribution Circular No.424, circular regarding ex-gratia amount paid Page 14 of 42

15 by the Board as a token of sympathy in fatal electrical accidents (both to human being and animals) and Circular No.680 regarding revision of rate of ex-gratia payment in case of accident involving animal lives. The GEB has also produced details of some random cases to which compensation was paid due to fatal human accident (period 2002, 2003 & 2004) and details of some of random cases in which compensation is paid as per Bai Nanda s formula to fatal accidents (period 2002 to 2003) The petitioner has filed rejoinder on The Chief Electrical Inspector has filed additional affidavit in reply on He has produced copy of letter dt regarding fatal accident of Village Rabarika, Tal: Visavadar, Dist: Junagadh and copy of the letters dt & etc. [9] Thereafter the petitioner filed one more submission on and again one more submission on wherein the petitioner involved the Ahmedabad Electricity Company and the Surat Electricity Company as respondents. Thereafter again the petitioner filed one more submission on [10] The GEB submitted a letter dt regarding procedure followed by GEB for giving compensation to the deceased and /or owners of animals which got electrocuted. It is submitted that as per District Circular No.424 dt , Rs.10,000/- is paid immediately to the family of the victim on an ad hoc basis. The payment is done at the field level generally within2 to 3 days. This amount is paid as a token of sympathy without going in to the causes of accident, which may show that the Board was not at fault and it was the party s negligence which caused the accident. Subsequently, in case of fatal accident od human being (minor or major), the compensation is paid in accordance with the Page 15 of 42

16 guidance given in the Bai Nanda s case. As per Bai Nanda case, field office is required to collect certain details (for arriving at a compensation amount) which are required to be collected from the family of the victim. Only on receipt of the above information, the compensation amount payable can be worked out. In case of fatal human accident of minor person, the compensation amount is worked out based on the earning of Rs.5/- per day i.e. Rs.1800/- per year (360 x Rs.5/- = Rs.1800), after attaining the age of 18 years as per the provision of the circular. In case of major human fatal accident, the criteria for compensation of amount as per Bai-Nanda case, is the property which the deceased hold and income from this property is subtracted from the annual income of the deceased and net amount arrived thereafter is considered for working out compensation. The compensation amount thus, worked out in case of minor and major human beings (in fatal electrical accident case) is further reduced to 10% and 30% as per the provision of the Bai Nanda case and balance amount only is payable to the legal heir of the deceased family. In the matter of ex-gratia payment involving animal lives due to electrocution, the Board is making the payment as per Dist. Circular No.688 dt under which the type of animal and maximum limit of ex-gratia payment is to be given is fixed. [11] The Torrent Power AEC Ltd. filed reply on regarding the accident on which is not the subject matter of the main petition. The AEC had also produced Form for Reporting Electrical accidents and a copy of the letter addressed to Dy.Municipal Commissioner, Naroda Zonal Office, Naroda, Ahmedabad on the subject of Dumping of debris under EHV line in plot no.53 of TP Scheme 30 of Asarwa and letter dt in the subject of permission for erection of new towers below AECo s existing 66 KV EHV line. [12] Thereafter, the GEB filed a reply on regarding maintainability of the petition Page 16 of 42

17 [13] It must be noted that section 53 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is regarding provision relating to safety and electricity supply. Sec.53(g) states as under: The authority may, in consultation with the State Government, specify suitable measures for (g) specifying action to be taken in relation to any electric line or electrical plant, or any electrical appliance under the control of a consumer for the purpose of eliminating or reducing the risk of personal injury or damage to property or interference with its use. Section 73 of the Electricity Act,2003 is regarding functions and duties of Central Electricity Authority and section 73 is as under: The Authority shall perform such functions and duties as the Central Government may prescribe or direct, and in particular to- (c) specify the safety requirements for construction, operation and maintenance of electrical plants and electric lines. This commission has framed regulation viz., The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standard of Performance of Distribution Licensee) Regulations,2005 which is notified in Government Gazette on and Chapter III is regarding safety and clause 3.1 to 3.8 are there for safety standard. [14] Section 161 of the Electricity Act,2003 is regarding Notice of accidents and inquiries and section 161 (1) is as under:- (1) If any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and Page 17 of 42

18 the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may by general or special order, direct. [15] Thereafter the petition was kept for hearing on On that day, the matter was called out. S/shri K.K.Bajaj and Kirti Bhatt were present on behalf of the petitioner and the Learned Advocate Shri N.K.Majmudar and S/Shri B.B.Shah, SE. and B.C.Parikh, E.E., MGVCL, B.B.Shah, S.E. and G.B.Patel, E.E., UGVCL, J.M.Vachhani, E.E., GUVNL, N.B.Avashia, E.E., K.M.Patel, E.E., U.I.Yadav, DGVCL, J.J.Gandhi, Dy.Engineer, H.R.Chavda, D.E., V.K.Chauhan, D.E., P.N.Gorania, S.R.Rankia,, H.C.Charola, M.K.Vora, R.G.Pathan, A.G.Parikh and M.H.Ninama, D.E., PGVCL were present on behalf of respondent GEB and Shri Gandhi, Electrical Inspector and Smt.Alpa Shah, Asst.Electrical Inspector were present on behalf of CEI, and Learned Advocte Shri Praful Thakkar with Shri M.S.Sharma, were present on behalf of Torrent Power AEC Ltd. (TPAEC Ltd.) and Learned Advocate Shri N.M.Dapat and Shri S.R.Shah, Addl. C.E., Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation were present at the time of hearing The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation filed its reply with a copy to the petitioner on that day On behalf of TPAEC Ltd., Learned Advocate Shri Praful Thakkar submitted that the legal heirs of Shri Vijay Kumar Bhikhabhai Valand (one of the victims of the accident) have filed the civil suit in the Civil Court for compensation on 28th June,2005. The accident occurred on Page 18 of 42

19 21 st December,2004 on 66 KV Overhead line behind 66 KV Naroda Substation.. He submitted that there were heaps of debris and scrap material on the plot of AMC. In fact, the respondent had drawn the attention of Dy.Municpal Commissioner, AMC on regarding dumping of debris and thus, reducing ground clearance from 66 KV OH lines. For increasing the clearance of line over the ground, letters were written to Dy. Municipal Commissioner for permission regarding erecting two new towers in Municipal corporation plot No.53 of TPS 30 of Asarwa which was denied by Dy.Municipal Commissioner by his letter dt Deceased Vijaykumar Bhikhabhai Valand and his friend Mr.Pravinkumar Khamar were playing with string made of conducting material just below EHV lines in AMC land and string was flung in the air and flash-over took place as it might have touched the 66 KV conductor. The petitioner has not put all such facts on the record of the commission. Neither legal heirs of deceased have been joined as necessary parties nor any authority letter was submitted by petitioner that they had been authorized to make submission or file petition on behalf of deceased before the Commission. Shri Thakkar further submitted that for deciding compensation, negligence by the company is required to be proved by the petitioner. Compensation will be decided on the basis of various factual aspects like age of deceased, his income, dependent family members, etc. In such fatal accident cases it is required to decide whether it was contributory negligence or comparative negligence on the basis of evidence. In the present case, petitioner has not led any evidence in support thereof. Shri Praful Thakkar further submitted that after filing main petition, the petitioner has made various submissions and increased the scope of petition. Moreover, legal heirs of the deceased/victim have filed civil suit as stated above while petitioner has filed petition before the Commission, thereby creating multiplicity of proceedings. There are petitions (before two different authorities) for one cause which is not permissible in law. He submitted that CERS has to come with specific prayer for specific reasons. Page 19 of 42

20 15.4 Shri P.N.Gandhi, representative of Chief Electrical Inspector submitted brief details for 10 cases which were stated by the petitioner. He submitted that major reasons for accidents were (i) poor maintenance, (ii) poor earthing of equipments, poles, etc. and (iii) snapping of conductors. He further submitted that in the State, while there is increase in the no. of accidents, but if we compare the same with the increase in number of consumers, length of network of the system, connected load and demand, then comparatively, the no. of accidents are not high. Shri Gandhi submitted that as and when an accident occurs, on the basis of reporting by licensee, investigation is carried out by the Electrical Inspector of that area who gives his finding and directive to the concerned authority. But there is no monitoring system for verification on the action taken by the licensee as per the directive of the Electrical Inspector The Learned Advocate Shri N.K.Majmudar submitted that petitioner has filed the present petition based on newspaper report and its scope is expanded for new cause by way of submissions. A preliminary objection has also been raised to the effect that the petition is of Public Interest Litigation under Article 227 of the Constitution and Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matter. Only Hon ble High Court has got jurisdiction to decide such Public Interest Litigations. He further submitted that the respondent has raised preliminary issue for the maintainability of the petition which is to be decided first. There is a settled principle of law for procedures, pleadings and Evidence Act which is required to be followed on the basis of facts and evidences. Shri Majmudar submitted that whenever there is a Fatal Accident Act, if petitioner has any grievance, he has to file the case under the provisions of the above Act. The petitioner has not produced any evidence for the cases which were referred in the petition except newspaper report. It was submitted by him that question of negligence is a dispute on fact Page 20 of 42

21 and therefore, the same cannot be adjudicated without recording the evidence. He also submitted that now the Electricity Act,2003 has come into force. The Commission has also framed regulations in which necessary provisions are made for safety and the same is required to be followed by the licensee. According to the new Act and regulations made by the Commission, the Commission has no power to grant compensation in case of accident. Shri J.J.Gandhi, Dy.Engineer, representing PGVCL submitted consolidated details of all cases which were referred by the petitioner in his main petition and subsequent submissions. He further submitted that the respondent had provided all the above details to the petitioner along with their reply dt Hence, the prayer of the petitioner and direction given by the Commission in its order dt are complied with Shri Kirti Bhatt, representative of CERS submitted that they have filed Special Civil Application before the Hon ble High Court in the present case in which Commission is one of the respondents. He agreed that respondent had provided all details for the cases which were demanded by them in their prayer clause of the petition. Hence, it may be treated as complied with. Shri Kirti Bhatt further submitted that as at present the matter is sub-judice before the Hon ble High Court by virtue of Public Interest Litigation filed by CERS, he does not want to make any further submission before the Commission on the present case. Shri K.K.Bajaj, representative of CERS submitted that respondent should be directed to provide the details for the accidents which occurred due to human error, stating what actions were taken by the respondent Having heard Learned advocates and representatives for both the parties and on perusal of the records submitted by the respondents, we observed that respondent GEB has complied with the order dt It was observed that in some cases, the findings of Chief Electrical Inspector were stated as awaited. Therefore, in these cases, Page 21 of 42

22 the Chief Electrical Inspector was directed to submit his investigation report, stating cause of accident, his recommendation to utility and also confirm what action the utility has taken in response to the recommendation to avoid recurrence of such accidents. The Chief Electrical Inspector was also directed to furnish the mechanism adopted by him for compliance of his report. He was also directed to submit his investigation report along with findings and remedy proposed in the licensed area of A.E C. to avoid recurrence of accidents in future. In the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 as well as regulation framed by the Authority, provisions for safety are made which are required to be implemented strictly by the licensee and the Chief Electrical Inspector. The Commission is adjudicating the above matter limited to provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 as well as provisions of regulations framed there-under. In this regard, the Commission found that Shri Kirti Bhatt representative of petitioner admitted having received all details from the respondent on as demanded in the CERS petition and further submissions. Moreover, he did not want to make any submission for the remaining prayers of his petition To determine the question of negligence, it was vehemently argued by the respondents during the course of hearing that negligence is required to be proved under the Electricity Rule,1956 in particular provisions of Rules 29, 44, 45, 26. However, the licensee/ Board is required to conduct periodical inspection of the lines maintained by them. In addition to above, according to rule 90, efficient earthing is required to be done. Moreover as per rule 92 of Indian Electricity Rule,1956, guarding should be provided wherever necessary. In the regulation of Standard of Performance of Distribution Licensee which was notified on 31 st March, 2005 by the Commission, Chapter III on Safety covered different aspects which are required to be strictly implemented by licensees/ Board. Therefore, the respondents were directed to submit the following details:- Page 22 of 42

23 The safety practice adopted by the licensees/board and its periodicity of inspections. Type of protection system adopted for isolation of lines/equipment etc. and the frequency for testing of such protective system in the year? Details of different tests undertaken? Whether record of such tests are maintained and who will verify the data? Details of procedure adopted for earthing? What is the frequency of testing of earthing in a year? Whether record of the same is maintained or not? Who verifies such data? Whether patrolling along the LT/HT/EHT lines is carried out? What is frequency in the year and what parameters are observed during patrolling, whether record of the same is maintained and who verifies the data? Details of accidents occurred due to human error, whether actions were taken against concerned persons or not? Status of the case. Future plan for safety improvement, if any. Steps taken by the office of Chief Electrical Inspector to ensure implementation of the recommendation made by it to avoid reoccurrence of such fatal cases. [16] Thereafter the petition was kept for hearing on On that day, the matter was called out. S/shri K.K.Bajaj and Kirti Bhatt were present on behalf of the petitioner. The Learned Advocate Shri Nirav Majmudar was present on behalf of GUVNL and all Discoms. S/Shri B.B.Shah, SE. and K.S.Patel were present on behalf of UGVCL. S/Shri J.J.Gandhi, Dy.Engineer and H.T.Dhruva and K.V.Bhatt were present on behalf of PGVCL. S/shri D.V.Patel, S.E., and K.M.Patel, D.E. were present on behalf of DGVCL. S/shri B.BShah and B.C.Parikh were present on behalf of MGVCL. The Learned Advocate Shri Praful Thakkar Page 23 of 42

24 was present on behalf of Torrent Power AEC Ltd. Shri Chetan Bundela was present on behalf of Torrent Power SEC Ltd. Learned Advocate Shri Nitin Dapat was present on behalf of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. S/shri A.C.Desai and P.N.Gandhi were present on behalf of CEI. The Learned Advocate Shri Premal Joshi was present on behalf of State Govt. and Chief Electrical Inspector and Shri S.K.Trivedi was present on behalf of GETCO at the time of hearing Chief Engineer (Tech.), PGVCL, Vadodara filed written submission on the action taken by the Distribution and Transmission companies of erstwhile GEB to avoid occurrence of fatal electrical accidents in response to directions from the Commission. These include details of actions like, whether the procedure as laid down in the Indian Electricity Rules,1956 is followed or not, Preventive maintenance work carried out, parameters checked during the preventive maintenance works, protection system adopted by all the Distribution and Transmission companies, further plan of safety, nature of human error accident and the action plan to avoid such accidents, etc. He submitted the following point-wise information: (1) How the procedure laid down in the I.E.Rules,1956 is followed by the companies of erstwhile GEB. 1.1 When new HT lines/ LT lines and Transformer centres are erected, technical data of such networks are submitted to the Electrical Inspector for inspection of the network. Electrical Inspector thoroughly inspects the erected line and Transformer centers are charged after receipt of permission from Electrical Inspector. While designing the network lines, the required factor of safety is considered as per I.E. Rules,1956. The Distribution Transformer in the network is being inspected every year by the Electrical Inspector and a required fee thereof is paid to them. Page 24 of 42

25 1.2 To maintain the laid down procedure and from the safety point of view, at the applicant s premises, the connection is released only after submission of the Test Report by the applicant duly filled in by the Electrical Supervisor authorized by the industries, Mines and Petrochemical Deptt. of the Govt. of Gujarat. This report contains the details of electrical appliances as well as phase to phase and phase to earth resistance value measured by the megger. 1.3 When any person constructs unauthorized buildings under or near the electric lines without permission of GEB (i.e. now Distribution Company), then a notice is issued immediately to the party under intimation to the Electrical Inspector and the local authorities to follow the procedure of I.E.Rules, Precautions are also taken against illegal installation of hoardings/ advertisements in the vicinity of electrical lines by giving notices and removal thereof. For awareness among the public, advertisement are also published as and when required. 1.5 Notices to TV cable operators for removal of TV cables are also issued for removal of their TV cables violating the provisions of I.E.Rules, Telecom Department is also requested for the removal of telephone cables and services in case these are laid down very near to electric lines or on GEB line supports. Same matter is also taken up in the PTCC meetings regularly. (2) MAINTENANCE PRACTICE The preventive maintenance of power supply infrastructure comprises of the following: 1. Preventive maintenance of HT and EHT lines network. 2. Preventive maintenance of LT lines network. Page 25 of 42

26 3. Preventive Maintenance of Distribution Transformer Centres. etc. In his submission, Chief Engineer (Tech), PGVCL also gave information regarding Pre-monsoon maintenance work (as para 2.1 of his submission). He also gave information regarding Maintenance work during monsoon (at para 2.2), information regarding regular/routine maintenance work (at para 2.3), information regarding parameters checked during maintenance work (at para 3), information regarding protections adopted by all Distribution and Transmission companies of erstwhile GEB (at para 4), further plan of safety (at para 5) and Human error accidents (at para 6). Para 6.1 of his submission on Nature of Human Error Accidents states that sometimes, the accidents take place due to over confidence of persons, unawareness of live conductors or leakage of current, sudden falling of live wires on the road/ earth and not noticed, working with live lines, tampering with power line by outsider, illegal extraction of power by lungars, lack of knowledge of repairing, etc. 2. To overcome the above lacunae, there is a provision of: 2.1 Line Clear Permit: Line clear permit is made compulsory before working on the line and providing earthing at the isolation point as well as at the place of working for safety precautions. 2.2 Such Line clear Permit is issued to authorized persons only. Before issue of Line Clear Permit, the Line is totally isolated/ discharged by switching off & taking out the breaker from panel. The isolated line is earthed to ensure that there is no live connection. For discharging purpose, before issue of Line Clear Permit, Sub-Line Clear Permit is also used for sub-group of employees to enhance safety during work under Line Clear Permit. Page 26 of 42

27 2.3 While working on the line/ equipment, the portion of line under maintenance is earthed during the period from both the ends. The staff while working on such lines is instructed and insisted for the use of safety tools like rubber hand gloves, safety belts, etc. 2.4 Colour code: The Feeder colour code is given to all the feeders of the respective sub-stations to avoid misunderstanding by the working personnel after availing the line clear permission i.e. Line clear permit obtained for one Feeder and workers climbs up on another line Feeder. This colour coding is adopted for all the Feeders right from Sub stations end to the tail end of the Feeder. 2.5 Names of 11 kv Feeders are painted on all poles and transformer centers with location number to avoid accidents and for proper identification. 2.6 Further, specific identification Boards are provided on the supports where more than one source of power is meeting. The PGVCL submission provides further information and details regarding Action plan to prevent the occurrence of such accidents (at para 6.2) and details of 29 nos. of fatal accidents (at para 7) Chief Engineer, PGVCL also filed written submission regarding the following points: 1. The safety practice adopted by the licensees/ board and its periodicity of inspection. 2. Type of protection system adopted for isolation of lines/ equipments etc. and frequency of testing for such protective system in the year. Page 27 of 42

28 3. Details of tests undertaken. Whether record of such tests are maintained and who will verify the data? 4. Details of procedure adopted for earthing. What is the frequency of testing of earthing in a year. Whether record of the same is maintained or not? Who verifies such data? 5. Whether patrolling along the LT/HT/EHT lines is carried out? What is the frequency in the year and what parameters are observed during patrolling, whether record of the same is maintained and who verifies the data? 6. Details of accidents which occurred due to human error, whether actions were taken against concerned person or not? Status of the case. 7. Future plan of safety improvement, if any The Learned Advocate Shri Praful Thakkar submitted that as per the provisions of the Act, all the electrical shocks fatal/ non fatal accidents which are reported to the company are always informed to the Electrical Inspector within the prescribed period, time and date positively. He further submitted that the heirs of the deceased have already instituted Civil Suit Bearing No.213/2005 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad.. Regarding the accident that took place on at Naroda the heirs of the deceased affected by fatal accident have not given any power to CERS to conduct any case on their behalf. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable. There are very few accidents on Company s system. Most of the accidents occur at the consumers end. The electrical accidents take place due to various reasons and many of the accidents are due to persons coming in contact with electrical wires/ equipments in the consumer s premises, either due to defective appliances or due to unauthorized work. The Chief Electrical Inspector is the authority to investigate in the matter of accidents and report the matter. He is the Independent Authority of the State Government in which nobody can have doubts and he is also a technical person having full knowledge of Page 28 of 42