1. If a person has been deprived of his ability to do something that he had enjoyed doing or had hoped to do, then money may enable him to enjoy other things instead. Money however, is not a recompense for loss of something having money value. It is given as some consolation for the distress that is the consequence of a loss on which no monetary value can be put. This is known as solace approach and has also been described as functional approach. This theory has found acceptance in the Canadian Courts. Thus Dickson. J, in Adnrews Vs. Grand and Toy Alberta Ltd., 83 DLR (3d) 452, observed:

"The (functional approach) attempts to assess the compensation required to provide the injured person ˜with reasonable solace for his misfortune". ˜Solace" in this sense is taken to mean physical arrangements which can make his life more endurable rather than "solace" in the sense of sympathy. The money for future care is to provide physical arrangements for assistance, equipment and facilities directly related to the injuries. Additional money to make life more endurable should then be seen as providing more general physical arrangements above and beyond those relating directly to the injuries.

2. Then there is the conceptual view. This treats the loss of a limb as a loss of an asset or property. The loss, though intangible, is said to have a value and then there is the theory of personal approach. This approach values feeling in addition to the loss of asset. The damages are to be determined not in relation to impersonal asset price but in relation human happiness, by evaluating the difference between the happiness the victim would have enjoyed if he had not been injured and the happiness or unhappiness he has experienced and will experience as an injured person. See Wise Vs. Kay, 1958-65 ACJ 208 (CA England). So far as the Indian system is concerned, the concept of full and fair compensation under several heads is recognised. The judicial precedents in this regard are in abundance and need not to be quoted. What is required to be quoted is the view expressed in Bird Vs. Cooking and Sons Ltd., 1951 (2) LTR 1260, wherein Birkett, L.J. observed :-

"Although there is no fixed and unalterable standard, the courts have been making these assessments for many years, and I think they form some guide to the kind of figure which is appropriate. When, therefore, a particular matter comes up for review; one of the questions is, how does this accord with the general run of assessment over the years in comparable cases."

3. The Courts in India have always tried to assess the full and fair compensation and when this is done, the principles laid down from time to time are taken note of. The elaborate discussion of this would be found in the case reported as 1995 ACJ 366, R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others.

In these two appeals preferred by the State, the respondent-writ petitioners were electrocuted and sustained burn injuries.

4. The facts in each of the case are as under:-

In Letters Patent Appeal No. 30/2002, the respondent writ petitioner, Altaf Ahmad Ganai was playing volley-ball in the school ground alongwith his class-mates. When they were playing, the ball went near an electric transformer. Respondent No. 1 made an effort to retrieve it and in the process, he came in contact with the Transmission live lines of the electric transformer which was installed there. He was electrocuted and sustained burn injuries. As a result of this, his one arm and one leg had to amputated. As there were injuries to the vital parts of body, he claimed compensation. According to him, this accident occurred as the State and its functionaries were remiss placing the transformer at a place which was not fully protected. The fact that the students could have a free access and preventive measures were adopted by the State was projected. It was in these circumstances, compensation to the extent of Rs.5 lacs was claimed. This prayer of the respondent writ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document