KARACHI, June 8: The Sindh High Court has decreed a suit against the KESC to the tune of Rs4.453 million. Justice Rehmat Hussain Jafri passed the order in a suit filed by Ms Farzana Parveen through her counsel Nasir Maqsood under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, on account of death of her 32-year-old husband, Hafiz Salim Akhtar, on October 14, 1998.

The plaintiff stated that that on October 14, 1998, Hafiz Salim Akhtar, who was senior clerk in the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, was returning to his house after completing his job when the main had broken loose from the pole dropping live wires into the rainy water on the ground. He came into contact with the wires and died on the spot.

The plaintiff claimed that the death was caused by the negligence and wrongful act of the KESC which, by virtue of inherent danger in its business operation, was under a heavy obligation to ensure, in terms of the prevailing electricity laws and rules, that no live parts of its installation and network be exposed so as to endanger life. She prayed for compensation of Rs81,63,060 alongwith 15 per cent profit per annum on the said amount coupled with the cost of the suit.

The KESC in its written statement questioned the liability and denied the accident as alleged. It asserted that no complaint of the incident was received at its complaint centre and that it was made aware of the accident for the first time through the present suit.

Justice Jafri invoked the doctrine of strict liability in his 29-page judgment. He observed: “The concept of ‘Strict Liability’ was propounded long back in the year 1868 in a case of Rylands V. Fletcher and another (1968 LTR 220). The rule of ‘Strict Liability’ laid down a principle of liability that if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do harm and such things escaped and it causes damage to another, he is liable to compensate for the damage caused.”

The judge relied upon two Indian Supreme Court judgments and held: “Under the concept of ‘Strict Liability’ the plaintiff is required to simply prove that the incident took place because of the hazardous or dangerous activity of the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to compensation irrespective of any defence taken by the defendant.”

He also held: “From the evidence it is clear that the defendant was grossly negligent in doing its public duties.

“Under the Electricity Law, guard wires are provided to de-energize the electricity wires and to prevent them from falling on the ground as required under Rule 76 of the Electricity Rules.”

The judge decreed the suit in the sum of Rs44,53,625.40 with profit/mark-up at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of the judgment till the recovery of amount with cost and also directed the KESC to satisfy the decree within a period of 30 days.