The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of strict liability, holding the respondents absolutely liable to compensate for the death caused by their negligence in maintaining electric/service wires.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking an appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners for the death of Jatinder Kumar S/o Sh. Kuldeep Raj (husband of petitioner No. 1, father of petitioner No. 2 and son of petitioner No. 3) due to rash and negligent act on the part of the respondents being employee of the Power Development Department working under the employment of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 at the time of death of the deceased.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The deceased-Jatinder Kumar had been engaged by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as casual labourer for the last more than seven years, who had been rendering his service to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and unfortunately on 23.09.2013, the deceased alongwith one Khaliq Khan was directed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to affect the repair in a Transformer installed near Sughat Complex Janipur, Jammu.

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that as the deceased and Khaliq Khan, at one point of time, had disconnected illegal connection which was running under the verbal direction of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, as such, they had developed grudge and ill will against the deceased and said Khaliq Khan. The respondent No. 6 and 7 were apprehending some departmental inquiry against them for the act of willful commission and omission regarding the misuse of electricity under the instructions of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, as such, the said respondents were always in the search of occasion to see that the service of the deceased as also Khaliq Khan were disbanded and terminated.

4. Further specific case of the petitioners is that it was in the knowledge of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that the supply of the line had not been disconnected and disrupted, as such, they intentionally and deliberately compelled the deceased-Jatinder Kumar to climb on the Transformer and affect the required repairs, though the immediate repairs were not required nevertheless the deceased was compelled to affect the repair. The deceased before climbing on the transformer had asked respondents Nos. 6 and 7 about the disconnection of power supply to the transformer situated near Sughat Complex, Janipur, Jammu. It was unanimously stated by respondent Nos. 6 & 7 that the power supply had been disconnected and thereafter, the deceased-Jatinder Kumar was made to climb the transformer and made the repair and the moment, the said Jatinder Kumar started the repair, he got the electric shock and died on the spot and due to the untimely death of Jatinder Kumar, whole of the family had been dragged and brought to starvation.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is unfortunate widow whereas petitioner No. 2 is minor daughter and petitioner No. 3 is the mother of the deceased, who were left with no source of income and the said Jatinder Kumar had been earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- not only by working as casual labourer but also rendering his service as an expert electrician in the society but due to the untimely death of said Jatinder Kurnar, the petitioners have been deprived their source of livelihood as also love and affection.

6. Learned counsel further submits that had the deceased not died, the deceased would have been in the department upto the age of 58 years and would have earned an amount of Rs. 25 lacs, out of which, the deceased would have spent more than Rs. 15 lacs on the welfare and betterment of his family members and the deceased at the time of death was aged about 28 years, as such, would have rendered his service in the department for another 30 years.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the rash and negligent act on the part of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 is established from the fact that an FIR in respect of the occurren