Res ipsa loquitur in electrical accident claims supports negligence inference and compensation when the cause remains unexplained.

Electric shock injuries caused by a live stay wire under the control of the Electricity Board justified an inference of negligence where the respondents failed to explain how the wire became live and their suggested cause was unproven. The court applied res ipsa loquitur because the occurrence was of a kind that ordinarily does not happen without negligence and the material facts were within the respondents' special knowledge. The Workmen's Compensation Act defence also failed, as the watchman engaged by the official liquidator did not fall within the statutory definition of workman. Compensation was then assessed on a broad basis, considering medical bills, burn injuries, treatment, pain and likely loss of earning capacity.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondents were liable to pay compensation for the electric shock injuries suffered by the watchman in the company premises, and (ii) what amount of compensation was payable.

Issue (i): whether the respondents were liable to pay compensation for the electric shock injuries suffered by the watchman in the company premises.

Analysis: The injury was caused by electric shock from a stay wire within the control of the Electricity Board. The exact manner in which the stay wire became live was not proved by the respondents, and the suggested theory of a conducting material dropped by birds was not established. In such circumstances, the accident itself gave rise to a presumption of negligence. The principle of res ipsa loquitur applied, because the occurrence was of a kind that ordinarily does not happen without negligence and the relevant facts were within the special knowledge of the respondents. The contention based on the Workmen's Compensation Act also failed, because a watchman engaged by the official liquidator did not fall within the statutory definition of workman under the Schedule. Even otherwise, the official liquidator would be entitled to indemnity.

Conclusion: The respondents were liable for the accident and were bound to compensate the second petitioner.

Issue (ii): what amount of compensation was payable.

Analysis: The Court took into account the medical expenses proved by the bills, the seriousness of the burns, the period of treatment, the pain and suffering caused, and the likely effect on the petitioner's earning capacity. The damages had to be assessed on a broad and reasonable basis, having regard to the facts and the nature of the injuries.

Conclusion: Compensation of Rs. 30,000 was fixed, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition if payment was not made within the time granted.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded and the respondents were directed to pay compensation to the injured petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accident from an electrical installation occurs in circumstances within the special knowledge of the authority in control, and the probable cause is not satisfactorily explained, negligence may be inferred by applying res ipsa loquitur and compensation can be awarded accordingly.

---