‘Compensate man who lost arms doing MSEDCL work’: Bombay HC
The court held that MSEDCL was bound to compensate Sadashiv Katke, an electrician, even though he was not an employee of the agency because officials from the agency had asked him to climb a power line and fix it.Updated: Aug 26, 2019 04:03 IST
The Bombay high court (HC) directed the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) to compensate a man whose arms had to be amputated after he suffered a shock while working on a power line in 2017.
The court held that MSEDCL was bound to compensate Sadashiv Katke, an electrician, even though he was not an employee of the agency because officials from the agency had asked him to climb a power line and fix it.
A division bench of justices Akil Kureshi and SJ Kathawalla, were hearing the plea filed by Katke, who suffered serious injuries after receiving a shock from a live power line. Both his arms had to be amputated. HC was informed that MSEDCL had refused to compensate Katke.
The petitioner, through advocate VS Talkute, informed the court that though the victim was not an employee of MSEDCL, he was asked to climb a power line and tighten the nuts on it.
Katke was assured that the line was disconnected, but he received a shock when he came in touch with the wire. He suffered grievous injuries and both his arms had to be amputated, thus leaving him with a permanent disability.
MSEDCL, however, argued that as per the rules, the victim was entitled to ex-gratia compensation of ₹2.25 lakh.
Talkute said that the amount that MSEDCL is willing to pay is too less. Talkute said that since Katke worked as an electrician, he could no longer pursue the vocation with both arms being amputated.
The bench accepted the contentions of the victim and said that MSEDCL cannot escape its liability to pay the compensation. But for the additional compensation, the question of vicarious liability of MSEDCL, as a result of the negligent actions of its employees who requisitioned Katke to climb the power line, needed to be looked into.
The bench said that it was permitting the victim to file a civil suit to prove the vicarious liability for additional compensation and disposed of the petition.