Kalpana Mahanta vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors

Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010128442026

undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3410/2026
KALPANA MAHANTA
W/O RATNESWAR DAS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT JYOTI PATH,
NILACHALPUR, P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO,
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL)
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001.
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL)
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001.
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
APDCL
GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO

Page No.# 2/8
ASSAM.
5:SAMIR KANDU
S/O LATE BIJAY KRISHNA KANDU
R/O HOUSE NO.5
SUWANI PATH
SRIMANTAPUR
P.S BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI -05
DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM

BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the Petitioners(s) : Mr. Y.S. Mannan, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H.K. Hazarika, Advocate


· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 25.06.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
·
the Operative Part of the Judgment : No

· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1. None appears for the respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
2 . The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being

Page No.# 3/8
aggrieved by the non-consideration of the representation submitted
on 14.08.2025 to the Managing Director of the APDCL.
3 . It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner along with her
minor daughter Himashree Das, were residing as tenants in the house
of the respondent No.5. On 19.05.2024, at around 4:15 pm in the
evening when her daughter went to the terrace of the building to
bring back the washed clothes which were hanged for drying, she
came in contact with the live wire of high voltage and due to which,
half of her body was burnt. Thereafter, the daughter of the petitioner
was admitted in GMC&H for treatment and on 23.05.2024, the
daughter of the petitioner died due to burn injuries. An FIR was filed
on 06.05.2024, regarding the unfortunate incident which led to the
death of the petitioner’s daughter. Record further reveals that on
14.08.2025, a representation was submitted before the Managing
Director of the APDCL. However, the said representation had not been
considered and as such, the petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present writ petition.
4. This Court has duly taken note of that in terms of Section 181(1)
read with Section 57(2) and 57(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the
Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission have notified a Regulation in
the name and style of AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical
Accidents) Regulations, 2019 (for short ‘the Regulation’).

Page No.# 4/8
5 . Chapter III of the said Regulation deals with compensation.
Section 5 of the Regulation stipulates when liability arises upon the
licensee. Section 6 further stipulates as to what is the quantum of
compensation payable for loss of life/injuries to human or animal at
Schedule B.
6 . A perusal of Schedule B shows that on account of loss of human
life as a result of electrical accident, the compensation payable is
Rs.4,00,000/-.
7 . This Court further takes note of that there is a manner, in which
the compensation application is required to be filed, which is
stimulated in Section 15. The said compensation application is
required to be filed either in person or by post to the Chief Executive
Officer of the concerned Electrical Circle of the licensee or the Station
Head of the generating company/CPP concerned, who shall cause
such claim to be enquired into and determine in accordance with the
Regulation. It is also mentioned in Section 15(i) that the claim can
also be made to the Office of the Managing Director or any other
Office of the Licensee/Generating Company of the CPP.
8 . This Court further takes note of Section 18, which stipulates that
the payment of compensation has to be paid to the person entitled
within 30 days from the date of the order and the order is required to
be passed in terms of Section 16.

Page No.# 5/8
9 . Section 20 further stipulates as to what is the interest payable. It
is relevant to take note of the said Section and the same is
reproduced herein below:-
“ 20 . Interest :
The quantum of compensation determined by the order of the
licensee/generating/CPP shall be paid within 120 days from the date of
occurrence of the electrical accident, and if such payment is delayed for
any reason beyond 120 days, the compensation shall be paid with
additional interest of 12% per annum on the amount from the due date of
payment.”

10 . From the above quoted Section, it would show that the payment
of compensation has to be made within 120 days from the date of
occurrence of the electrical accident and if the payment is delayed for
any reason beyond 120 days, the compensation shall be paid with
additional interest of 12% per annum on the amount from the due
date of payment.
11 . In the backdrop of the above, the records indicate that the
petitioner did not file the application in terms of Form B which is
Annexure-II to the Regulation, but had submitted a representation on
14.08.2025 to the Managing Director of the APDCL and the Office of
the said Managing Director had duly received the same on
14.08.2025. However, the petitioner had not been informed as to the
result of the said representation or any amount had been paid. It is
under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Page No.# 6/8
12 . It is very pertinent at this stage also to take note of that in terms
of Section 5 of the Regulation, the licensee would only make payment
of compensation if the electrical accident is attributable to the fault or
the negligence of the licensee/generating company of the CPP. On
account of not making the Chief Electrical Inspector as a party to the
instant petition, this Court is not in a position to ascertain as to
whether the accident was on account of any attributable
fault/negligence of the licensee.
13 . Accordingly, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the
Managing Director of the APDCL to consider the representation as an
application filed in Form B and thereupon, if it is found that the
electrical accident was attributable to the APDCL authorities, the due
compensation be paid to the petitioner. Needless to mention that in
the circumstance, it is found that the electrical accident was due to
the fault of the licensee of the APDCL and there was delay in making
the payment of the compensation, by operation of Section 21 of the
Regulation, the interest would accrue, which the Managing Director of
the APDCL.
14. This Court further observes that the aforesaid directions have
been passed solely on the basis of averments made in the writ
petition that the representation dated 14.08.2025 was neither
considered nor disposed off. This Court observes that if the
representation had already disposed off, the aforementioned

Page No.# 7/8
directions would not apply. However, the Managing Director, APDCL
shall provide a speaking order giving details.
15 . This Court further observes that if upon considering the
representations and making enquiry, it comes to light that the
electrical accident was not attributable to the Licensee, the
representations be disposed of by passing a speaking order. The
Managing Director of the APDCL shall before taking such decision of
rejecting the claim shall obtain a report from the Chief Electrical
Inspector.
16 . The aforesaid directions be carried out within a period of 6 (six)
months from the date a certified copy of the present order is
submitted to the Managing Director of the APDCL. The petitioner
along with the certified copy of this order shall also furnish the FIR,
Post-Mortem report and the certificate of Death of her daughter.
17 . This Court further observes that in the circumstance, the claim of
the petitioner is rejected, the petitioner would be at liberty to
approach this Court.
18 . In addition to the above, this Court further observes that if the
petitioner is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the
petitioner would be at liberty to take resort to Section 9 of the
Regulation.
19 . Before parting with the record, this Court expresses

Page No.# 8/8
disappointment on account of the non-appearance of the APDCL
Standing Counsel inspite of they being furnished with copy of this writ
petition and their names reflected in the cause list.
J U D G E
Comparing Assistant