MP Electricity Board v Shail Kumar, AIR 2002 SC 551, is a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of India under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case deals with the liability of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board for the electrocution of Shail Kumar, who suffered serious injuries when he came into contact with an electric wire that was lying on the ground. The court held that the MPEB was responsible for the injuries suffered by Shail Kumar due to its failure to take adequate safety measures and maintain its electrical installations properly. The court ordered the MPEB to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to Shail Kumar. The case highlights the importance of service providers taking adequate safety measures and maintaining their installations to ensure the safety of their customers.
- Case Name: M. P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar
- Citation: AIR 2002 SC 551
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Date of Judgement: February 4, 2002
- Bench: B.N. Kirpal and Ruma Pal, JJ.
- Subject: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Liability of the Electricity Board for electrocution
Brief Facts of the Case:
Shail Kumar, the respondent, was a resident of Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh. On June 17, 1987, he suffered an electric shock when he came into contact with an electric wire that was lying on the ground. As a result of the shock, he suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized for over a month.
Shail Kumar filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Jabalpur, alleging that the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB) was responsible for his injuries as it had failed to take adequate safety measures. The forum held that the MPEB was negligent in maintaining its electrical installations and awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to Shail Kumar.
Aggrieved by the decision, the MPEB filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which upheld the forum’s decision. The MPEB then approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which also upheld the lower forums’ decision.
The MPEB then filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the NCDRC’s decision.
Issues before the Court:
The main issue before the court was whether the MPEB was liable for the electrocution of Shail Kumar and whether it had taken adequate safety measures.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence on record, held that the MPEB was liable for Shail Kumar’s injuries. The court observed that the MPEB had failed to take adequate safety measures and had neglected to maintain its electrical installations properly.
The court also noted that the MPEB had not produced any evidence to show that it had taken appropriate safety measures, and that it had not complied with the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The court held that the MPEB was responsible for the injuries suffered by Shail Kumar, and that it was liable to pay compensation to him.
The court, therefore, upheld the decision of the lower forums and ordered the MPEB to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to Shail Kumar.
Conclusion:
This case is an important decision in the field of consumer protection, as it highlights the liability of service providers for the safety of their customers. The judgment emphasizes the need for service providers to take adequate safety measures and to maintain their installations properly to ensure the safety of their customers.
Decision:
The decision in M. P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar, AIR 2002 SC 551, was that the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB) was held liable for the electrocution of Shail Kumar, who suffered serious injuries when he came into contact with an electric wire that was lying on the ground. The court held that the MPEB had failed to take adequate safety measures and had neglected to maintain its electrical installations properly. The MPEB was found responsible for the injuries suffered by Shail Kumar and was ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to him. The court upheld the decision of the lower forums and emphasized the need for service providers to take adequate safety measures and to maintain their installations properly to ensure the safety of their customers.
