loader image

Gauhati High Court Directs APDCL to Decide Compensation Claim in Minor Electrocution Death

Gauhati High Court Directs APDCL to Decide Compensation Claim in Minor Electrocution Death

Kalpana Mahanta v. State of Assam, Decided on 25.06.2026

APDCL Electrocution Compensation Claim

The Gauhati High Court has directed the Managing Director of Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) to treat a bereaved mother’s representation as a compensation application under the AERC (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019, and decide her claim within six months.

The petitioner approached the Court after alleging that her minor daughter suffered fatal burn injuries upon coming into contact with a live high-voltage wire on the terrace of her rented accommodation in May 2024. She contended that despite submitting a representation to APDCL in August 2025 seeking compensation, no decision was taken.

Also Read Orissa High Court Awards Rs. 20 Lakh Each to SBI Daily-Wage Sweepers in Lieu of Regularization After Nearly 30 Years of Service

Justice Devashis Baruah observed that while the petitioner had not filed the prescribed Form B under the Regulations, her representation could be treated as a compensation application. The Court noted that under the 2019 Regulations, compensation of ?4 lakh is payable for loss of human life in an electrical accident where the accident is attributable to the fault or negligence of the licensee.

The Court clarified that it could not itself determine APDCL’s liability because the Chief Electrical Inspector had not been made a party to the proceedings. It directed the Managing Director to conduct an inquiry and, if the accident is found to be attributable to APDCL’s negligence, release the compensation in accordance with the Regulations. The Court further observed that where payment is delayed beyond the prescribed period, the claimant would be entitled to 12% annual interest as provided under the Regulations.

Also Read MP High Court Restores Constable’s Appointment, Says Trivial Criminal Case Without Moral Turpitude Is No Bar to BSF Service

If APDCL concludes that the accident was not attributable to its negligence, it must first obtain a report from the Chief Electrical Inspector and pass a reasoned speaking order. The petitioner has been granted liberty to challenge any adverse decision before the High Court and to invoke the remedy under the Regulations if dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation.

The Court also expressed disappointment over the non-appearance of APDCL’s standing counsel despite service of the writ petition and their names being reflected in the cause list.

Appearances

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

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

PDF Icon

Kalpana Mahanta v. State of Assam

Preview PDF