Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Writ Seeking Electrocution Compensation, Faults Authorities for Not Communicating Rejection Order
The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that a domestic Tullu Pump electrocution falls outside the 2018 compensation circular, but directed power officials to communicate orders to applicants without delay.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed a writ petition filed by Shrawan Kewat, a resident of Village Mekri in Janjgir-Champa district, who sought compensation for the electrocution death of his wife Sarita Kewat on 2 November 2024. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, sitting singly, held on 8 July 2026 that the incident — which occurred while the deceased was transporting a Tullu Pump inside her residential premises — does not fall within the compensation scheme under the Circular dated 10 September 2018 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited. While dismissing the petition, the court separately directed CSPDCL officers to ensure that every order passed on an application is communicated to the applicant, observing that no evidence of service of the rejection order dated 10 October 2025 had been placed before it.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Shrawan Kewat approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that his wife died on 2 November 2024 due to electrocution while she was engaged in transporting a Tullu Pump from the courtyard to the inside of their home. The incident was reported to the police, who investigated and submitted a final report recording that the deceased died due to electrocution while operating the pump.
Kewat contended that the electrocution occurred primarily because of the negligence of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL). On that basis, he argued that he was legally entitled to compensation from the respondent authorities. His petition sought compensation in the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs along with interest at 9% per annum from 1 November 2024, noting that the Circular dated 10 September 2018 fixed a compensation amount of Rs. 4 lakhs but that the demand before the Assistant Engineer at Tifra and Sakri was for the higher sum.
The respondents were the State of Chhattisgarh through the Revenue Department, the Executive Engineer of CSPDCL at Tifra District Bilaspur, CSPDCL through its Managing Director, and the Collector of Bilaspur.
The Legal Issue: Scope of the Circular Dated 10 September 2018
The central question was whether the Circular dated 10 September 2018 covers an electrocution death that occurred within the domestic premises of the consumer, arising from the use of an appliance beyond the consumer's metering point.
Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, CSPDCL, submitted that the petitioner's wife died inside the domestic premises while operating a Tullu Pump and that this situation does not fall within the ambit of the compensation scheme under that Circular. Counsel pointed out that the petitioner's application for compensation had already been considered and rejected by an order dated 10 October 2025. It was contended, therefore, that the grievance raised in the writ petition no longer survived.
CSPDCL additionally placed reliance on a prior order of the same court dated 2 May 2023 in WPC No. 2010 of 2023, where a compensation claim was rejected on similar facts. In that case, the court held that, under the Circular dated 10 September 2018, compensation is payable only when the accident occurs in relation to the electricity meter or electrical installation up to the consumer's metering point, and not beyond the consumer's internal electrical system.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad examined the final report submitted by the police and the terms of Circular dated 10 September 2018. The court found that the death of the petitioner's wife occurred due to electrocution while operating a domestic Tullu Pump within the residential premises.
The court held that such an incident does not fall within the scope and coverage of the Circular. Given the express provisions of the Circular — which limits compensation to accidents connected to the electricity meter or electrical installation up to the consumer's metering point — the court was of the considered opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to the compensation claimed. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.
However, before closing the matter, the court turned to a separate procedural concern. Although CSPDCL had contended that the petitioner's application was already rejected by order dated 10 October 2025, the court observed that nothing on record indicated that this rejection order had ever been communicated to Kewat. No endorsement or other material was placed before the court to show that a copy was served upon or dispatched to him.
The court described this as “a matter of serious concern,” observing that every applicant is entitled to be informed of the fate of his application within a reasonable time. The failure to communicate a decision deprives the affected person of the opportunity to avail appropriate legal remedies. The court directed the competent officers of CSPDCL to personally ensure that every order passed on an application is duly communicated to the concerned applicant without delay, and warned that failure to comply would constrain the court to take appropriate action.
Outcome
WPC No. 1910 of 2025 was dismissed on 8 July 2026. The court held that a domestic Tullu Pump electrocution within the residential premises is outside the compensation scheme under Circular dated 10 September 2018, which applies only to accidents up to the consumer's metering point. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of. Separately, CSPDCL was directed to ensure that rejection orders on compensation applications are communicated to applicants without delay, failing which the court stated it would take appropriate action.