Article 226 compensation under electrical accident regulations requires attributable licensee negligence.

The petitioner, Bijuli Borah, sought compensation from the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) for the death of her husband due to electrocution, alleging inaction by APDCL in awarding compensation

The Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission had framed the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019 under Sections 181(1), 57(2) and 57(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003

During the proceedings, the Chief Electrical Inspector, arrayed as Respondent No. 5, filed an affidavit enclosing an Electrical Accident Report dated 22 January 2026. The report did not attribute fault to APDCL; instead, it attributed responsibility to the deceased’s employer, M/s Babul Roy, for permitting an unqualified person to undertake electrical work on high-voltage installations

The report had not been challenged as on the date of judgment

1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could direct APDCL to pay compensation under the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019.

2. Whether compensation was payable where the Electrical Accident Report did not attribute fault or negligence to APDCL.

The Court applied Sections 181(1), 57(2) and 57(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, under which the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission framed the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019.

Regulation 5 makes the licensee or generating company liable to pay compensation for death or injury caused by an electrical accident only where the accident is attributable to its fault or negligence, subject to the stated exceptions for suicide or homicide.

Regulation 6, read with Schedule B, prescribes compensation of ₹4,00,000 for loss of human life resulting from an electrical accident.

The Court further applied the principle that compensation under Article 226 may be awarded where the record clearly establishes that the electrical accident was attributable to the fault or negligence of the licensee, with the Electrical Accident Report being a relevant evidentiary document.

The Regulations imposed liability on APDCL only if its fault or negligence caused the electrical accident.

Although the prescribed compensation for loss of life was ₹4,00,000, the Electrical Accident Report expressly found no fault on APDCL’s part and instead attributed the accident to the deceased’s employer for engaging an unqualified person in high-voltage electrical work.

Since the report remained unchallenged, the Court found no factual basis to conclude that APDCL was liable under Regulation 5.

Consequently, the Court held that it could not grant compensation under Regulations 5 and 6 in the exercise of its Article 226 jurisdiction.

The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the validity or correctness of the Electrical Accident Report.

Accordingly, if the petitioner subsequently challenges the report and approaches the competent Civil Court, the present judgment will not prejudice her case.