Back
2011 Supreme(J&K) 127
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Virender Singh, Muzaffar Hussain Attar, JJ.
Joginder Singh & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
State of J&K & Ors. -Resopndent
LPAOW No. 34/2007, LPAOW No. 58/2008 & LPAOW No. 60/2008
Decided On : 24-03-2011
Mr.P.S.Chandel, Advocate (in LPAOW Nos.34/2007 & 58/2008)., Mr.Vipin Gandotra, Advocate (in LPAOW No.60/2008).Mr.G.S.Thakur, Advocate (in all appeals) for Respondent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of 'strict liability' in cases of hazardous activities, emphasizing the liability of enterprises engaged in such activities to compensate those affected by accidents, irrespective of negligence.
Headnote:
Negligence - Compensation for Deaths and Injuries - M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and others (2002 (2) SCC 162), Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) 3 HL 330, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 - The court discussed the doctrine of 'strict liability' and its application in cases of hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. The judgment emphasized the liability of enterprises engaged in such activities to compensate those affected by accidents, irrespective of negligence. The court also referred to the criteria for determining compensation for non-earning housewives and the assessment of loss of dependency in case of death. The judgment highlighted the need to apply appropriate multipliers based on the age of the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals involved three incidents resulting in two deaths and one injury. The court heard three writ petitions for compensation, which were dismissed by the Writ Court on the ground of disputed questions of fact. The cases involved an amputation, death due to electric shock, and death caused by a falling electric pole. The appellants argued that the writ petitions were rejected without considering the doctrine of 'strict liability' and that the judgment in SDO Grid Corporation's case was not applicable to the facts of the cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the negligence in the cases was evident, making the respondents liable to compensate the claimants for deaths and injury. The court assessed the compensation for each case based on the doctrine of 'strict liability' and relevant legal principles.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petitions and the application of the doctrine of 'strict liability' in cases involving hazardous activities. The court also addressed the disputed questions of fact raised by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the application of the doctrine of 'strict liability' in cases of hazardous activities, highlighting the liability of enterprises engaged in such activities to compensate those affected by accidents, irrespective of negligence. The court also discussed the criteria for determining compensation for non-earning housewives and the assessment of loss of dependency in case of death, emphasizing the need to apply appropriate multipliers based on the age of the deceased.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the appeals and directed the respondents to release the compensation to the appellants within three months, failing which they would be entitled to interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
1. Above captioned three appeals involve three different incident causing two deaths and injuring one. In this regard three different writ petitions were filed before the learned Writ Court for compensation, which have now been dismissed vide three different orders, but solely on the ground that they involve disputed questions of fact and such cannot be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction in the light of the judgment handed down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case 'S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and others v. Timudu Oram' reported in 2005 AIR SCW 3715 (for short hereinafter to be referred as 'SDO Grid Corporation'). Therefore, all these three appeals have been clubbed together for disposal.
2. Even for deciding the main issue with regard to the mainta: " ability of the writ petitions, we have to look at the facts of each individual case, which, in brief, are thus:
Hereinafter the appellants shall be referred to as writ petitioner(s) only. LPAOW No. 34/2007 arising out of OWP No. 647/2002
3. In this case, there is an amputation of right arm of injured- writ petitioner Joginder Singh. His permanent disability is assessed as 60%. On the date of accident, he was working as a Conductor in private matador and his age was 25 years.
4. It is pleaded that on 11.04.2002, he was passing through land of one Dharam Singh S/o Sh. Kanshi Ram, where an electric pole was installed by the State Electricity Department (respondent), in which electric current was passing. He incidentally touched that pole and got electrocuted, as a result thereof, received severe burn injuries, which ultimately resulted into amputation of his right hand from elbow. He has claimed Rs.12 lacs as compensation. along with the main petition, he has attached certain documents with regard to his medical treatment etc.
5. Refuting the case of the petitioner, the stand taken by the official respondents is that he received injuries because of his own fault as he was climbing the electric pole to snap the conductor in order to misuse the electricity. The incident was reported by the Lineman of the department and ultimately the matter was investigated, in which, the statements of some locals were also recorded. On these pleas, the preliminary objection raised by the official respondents for dismissal of the writ petition was that all the facts involved in the petition were disputed one, which could not be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction.
LPAOW No. 58/2008 arising out of OWP No. 994/2003
6. This is a case of death, in which wife of the appellant-Tara Chand (writ petitioner) died due to electric shock. It is pleaded that on 02.08.2003, she came in contact with live electric wire attached with the electric pole installed by the State Electricity Department and was hanging loose in the maize field for the last 8-10 days on account of heavy rains. In this connection, F.I.R. under Section 304-A RFC was also got lodged in Police Station, Ramnagar. It is further pleaded that despite the fact of electric wire being loose brought to the notice of one Lineman, no attempt was made by the department to correct the defect and, therefore, this occurrence.
7. The deceased is stated to be of the age of 26 years at the time of occurrence and a sum of Rs.5 lacs is asked for as compensation in this regard. The writ petitioner has attached certain documents including the report prepared by the police, the post mortem report etc.
8. The stand taken by the official respondents in their defence as borne out from the reply filed by them to the main petition is, that the incident has occurred because of snapping of the conductor resulting into falling of the wire and therefore, it was purely an act of God and not on account of negligence on the part of the department. It was further averred that due to heavy rains, there might have been the collision of the conductor resulting into its snapping.
LPAOW No. 60/2008 arising out of OWP No. 892/2003
9. This case also relates to death of o
