The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide amplitude of power conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the principles governing assessment of compensation in cases of permanent disability due to negligence.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking a direction upon the respondents for providing compensation to her for the permanent disability cased to her due to electrocution. A further direction has been sought upon the respondents to appoint son of the petitioner on compassionate grounds and to regularize services of husband of the petitioner.

2. It is averred by the petitioner that she is a house wife and on 25th August 2011, while she was working in the field cultivating vegetables, 33000 kv power transmission line fell down, as a result of which she received severe burns and injuries. FIR No. 216/2011 for offence under section 285/337 PC came to be registered against the officials of the respondent Department with Police Station, Parimpora. The petitioner was shifted to hospital where she was diagnosed as high voltage electric burns case and she remained in the hospital for more than three months. She was discharged from SKIMS, Srinagar on 02.11.2011. It has been submitted that on account of burns suffered by the petitioner due to electrocution, both the legs of the petitioner below the knees were amputated.

3. The petitioner is stated to have suffered 100% disability and in this regard she has placed on record a copy of the certificate issued by the Medical Board. It has been submitted that the petitioner has to bear the expenses of Rs. 1,85,250/- for installation of artificial limbs. It is averred that on account of disability suffered by the petitioner, she is unable to perform any job and that she needs help of an attendant for attending to day-today chores. It has been submitted that the petitioner has spent more than Rs. 15.00 lacs on her treatment. The petitioner further submitted that she has been paid only an amount of Rs. 1.00 lacs as exgratia relief but the respondents have not acceded to her request for engaging her husband as a permanent employee. According to the petitioner, she was 38 years old at the time of the accident and that because of negligence of the respondents, she has been crippled for whole of her life. On the basis of these assertions, the petitioner has sought compensation of Rs. 50.00 lacs from the respondents.

3. The writ petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that the petition raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into or considered in the writ proceedings. It has been submitted that on 25.08.2011 at around 11:00 a.m., Bemina-Budgam transmission line tripped down and after ascertaining the reason, it was observed that one wooden cross of HT Frame near Goripora Hamdania Colony was broken which resulted in sagging of conductor to a lower level. It has been further submitted that a lady who was working in the paddy field beneath 33 KV line received electric shock during the said incident and she was hospitalized for treatment. It has been further submitted that an FIR was registered with Police Station, Bemina, and on humanitarian grounds, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was given to the husband of the victim for meeting the medical expenses during hospitalization of his wife. The respondents further contend that an amount of Rs. 1.00 lac has been sanctioned as ex-gratia relief by the respondent department in favour of the petitioner, which stands released in her favour. It is also submitted that husband of the petitioner has been engaged on casual basis by the respondent department. The respondents have denied any negligence on their part and claimed that all safety measures to safeguard the life and property of the people were taken.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the material on record.

5. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that disputed questi