1990 (1) TMI 250 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) for the electric shock accident.
2. Applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
3. Quantum of compensation payable to the injured party.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) for the electric shock accident:
The second petitioner, a watchman appointed by the official liquidator of Mittal Steel Re-rolling and Allied Industries Ltd., suffered burns from an electric shock on January 1, 1989, due to contact with the stay wire of an electric post within the company's premises. The respondents, KSEB and its Chief Engineer, contended that the incident was accidental and not due to any lapse on their part. They argued that the electric shock was caused by a piece of metal wire dropped by birds, which made contact with the electric line, a scenario beyond their control. The court, however, found that the theory of a metal wire being dropped by a bird was not proven and applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur, concluding that the injury was caused by the respondents' negligence. The court held that the respondents were liable to compensate the second petitioner for the injuries sustained.

2. Applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923:
The respondents argued that any compensation payable to the second petitioner should be the responsibility of the first petitioner (official liquidator) under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The court, however, noted that the definition of "workman" under the Act does not include an employee of the official liquidator. It was well-settled that the categories listed in Schedule II of the Act are exhaustive, and a watchman working under the official liquidator does not fall within this definition. Therefore, the second petitioner could not claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Nonetheless, the court mentioned that under section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, even if the official liquidator were liable, they would be entitled to indemnification by KSEB.

3. Quantum of compensation payable to the injured party:
The court considered the extent of the injuries, the medical expenses incurred, and the impact on the second petitioner's ability to earn a livelihood. The total amount covered by medical bills was Rs. 1,093. The court observed the seriousness of the injuries, noting that the burns on the second petitioner's palms would significantly handicap his ability to earn a living through physical labor. The court also noted that the second petitioner required further medical treatment and had suffered considerable pain. Given these factors, the court fixed the compensation amount at Rs. 30,000. The respondents were directed to pay this amount within two months, failing which the second petitioner would be entitled to recover the amount with 6% interest from the date of filing the petition until recovery.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the KSEB was liable for the accident due to negligence and directed them to pay Rs. 30,000 as compensation to the second petitioner. The Workmen's Compensation Act was deemed inapplicable to the second petitioner, and the principle of res ipsa loquitur was applied to establish the respondents' liability.