Back
1997 Supreme(J&K) 168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Bhawani Singh,M.Y. Kawoosa, JJ.
Haneefa Bano - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
LPA No. 45/1995
Decided On : 08 September, 1997
Advocate For Appellant: S.U. Dar
Advocate For Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain Attar
The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain writs for compensation in cases involving infringement of fundamental or legal rights, even if an alternate remedy is available under ordinary civil law, provided that the facts are not disputed and the material before the Court is sufficient to dispose of the petition.
Headnote:
WRIT - COMPENSATION - ELECTRICITY - NEGLIGENCE - ARTICLE 226 - FACTUAL DISPUTE - JURISDICTION - FACTUAL DISPUTE - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - PERMANENT DISABILITY - LUMP SUM PAYMENT - INTEREST - FIXED DEPOSIT.
Fact of the Case:
A 16-year-old illiterate girl suffered severe burns and permanent disability to her right arm after coming into contact with a fallen high-tension wire while working in her family's paddy field. The girl's father filed a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking compensation from the electricity department for negligence in maintaining the power line.
Finding of the Court:
1. The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain writs for compensation in cases involving infringement of fundamental or legal rights, even if an alternate remedy is available under ordinary civil law, provided that the facts are not disputed and the material before the Court is sufficient to dispose of the petition. 2. In the present case, the facts were not disputed as the incident had been thoroughly investigated by the respondents and the petitioner's injuries were supported by medical certificates. The Court held that there was no need for further enquiry and that the case could be adjudicated upon the facts on record. 3. The Court assessed the compensation based on the petitioner's age, nature of injury, permanent disablement, and future earning potential. Considering her limited earning capacity and the fact that she would be dependent for the rest of her life, the Court awarded compensation of Rs. 1,68,000/-.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain writs for compensation in cases involving infringement of fundamental or legal rights, even if an alternate remedy is available under ordinary civil law? 2. Whether the facts in the present case were disputed, requiring further enquiry or whether the material before the Court was sufficient to dispose of the petition? 3. How should the compensation be assessed in the present case, considering the petitioner's age, nature of injury, permanent disablement, and future earning potential?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain writs for compensation in cases involving infringement of fundamental or legal rights, even if an alternate remedy is available under ordinary civil law, provided that the facts are not disputed and the material before the Court is sufficient to dispose of the petition. 2. In the present case, the facts were not disputed as the incident had been thoroughly investigated by the respondents and the petitioner's injuries were supported by medical certificates. The Court held that there was no need for further enquiry and that the case could be adjudicated upon the facts on record. 3. The Court assessed the compensation based on the petitioner's age, nature of injury, permanent disablement, and future earning potential. Considering her limited earning capacity and the fact that she would be dependent for the rest of her life, the Court awarded compensation of Rs. 1,68,000/-.
Final Decision: The High Court awarded compensation of Rs. 1,68,000/- to the petitioner, minus the amount she had already been granted as temporary relief. The Court directed that the balance amount be deposited with the Registry within three months, failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Court also directed that Rs. 18,000/- be released to the petitioner through her counsel, and the remaining amount be put in a fixed deposit in her name for a period of six years, with the interest amount to be released to her monthly or quarterly as she requires.
1. This letters patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned single judge passed on July 21st, 1995 in writ petition No.2488/94.The petitioner, who is an illiterate girl of 16 years of age, filed the writ petition against the respondents seeking the indulgence of the writ-court under Article 226 of the constitution of India for the direction to the respondents by way of writ of Mandamus to pay compensation of Rs.4.50.lacs to the petitioner for committing negligence in maintaining the electric high tension line passing through the fields, including the small piece of Rice growing land belonging to the father of the petitioner. It is alleged that in the month of September, alleged that in the month of September, 1992, While the petitioner along with her father and some others were harvesting Rice crop in their field, petitioner suddenly came in contact with a high tension live electric wire which had fallen down from the poles. This gave a severe, shock in her arm causing serious burns. Petitioner fell unconscious in the field. She was rushed to Bone and joint Hospital, Barzulla in the state of unconsciousness, where she was hospitalised for two months. Her right fore-arm was amputated resulting in causing permanent disablement to the petitioner. It is stated that whole right arm of the petitioner has been rendered useless. Medical certificates have been enclosed with the petition .It has been pleaded that all this happened due to carelessness and negligence of respondents 4 to 7 who failed to discharge their duties in a manner they were expected to do. This accident would not have taken place if the timely action by the respondents to restore the line to its earlier position had been taken. Their failure to do so obviously tentamounts to negligence and dereliction of duty. She has stated that She belongs to a poor family. Her mother was a paralytic patient for ten years who died and her father is an old man who cannot look after her. She, therefore, filed the writ petition demanding the aforementioned compensation. Writ petition came to be dismissed in limine by the writ-court mainly on the ground that the question involved is a disputed one and the disputed question of fact can be resolved only by the civil court. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution cannot be invoked for this purpose.
2. Heard learned counsel in detail and we have perused the entire record.
3. From the rival arguments advanced before us following questions are formulated for the adjudication of the case:-
1. Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked under Article 226 of the constitution for demanding compensation in a case like the present one?
2. Whether in the present case there is any dispute regarding the facts;
3. In case it is held that the writ is maintainable in the present form and there is no dispute on facts, what is the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation?
4. The fist question relating to the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the constitution of India to entertain writs demanding compensation is the star point, rather the pivot around which the fate of the whole case revolves. It is on this point writ court has declined to entertain the petition for compensation on the ground that in such cases where facts are disputed, rights and obligations of citizens are involved, petitioner can seek remedy under ordinary civil law and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently submitted that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution cannot be invoked where there is a civil liability, where disputed facts are involved as to whether the incident has taken place, whether there is any negligence on the part of the respondents and the circumstances on which basis the compensation demanded is to be awarded. According to the learned counsel, all these points are factual and are di
