SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(J&K) 230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
M.A. CHOWDHARY, J.
Gulshan Ara, Wd/o. Late Liaqat Ali & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of J&K through Chief Secretary, J&K Govt. Civil Secretariat, Jammu & Ors. - Respondents
OWP No. 772 of 2004
Decided On : 02-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M Tariq Mughal.
For the Respondent: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy AG.

Headnote:

Compensation - Negligence - Electricity Act - [Gulshan Ara] - [Compensation for death due to electrocution] - [Electricity Act, 2003, Section 304-A RPC] - The court discussed the negligence of the officials in maintaining the electric lines, the legal obligation of the state to compensate the claimants, and the assessment of compensation based on the deceased's income and age. The court referred to the judgments in 'Kamlo Devi vs. State of J&K & Ors.', 'Shahnaza Akhter & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors.', and 'Mst. Mala Begum vs. State of J&K & Ors.' to support the petitioner's contentions. The court also cited the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 304-A RPC in its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought compensation for the death of her husband due to electrocution. The respondents argued that the deceased was responsible for his own death and that the writ petition was not maintainable. The court considered the admitted facts of the electrical accident and the negligence of the officials in maintaining the electric lines.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the officials of the Power Development Department were negligent in maintaining the electric lines, resulting in the death of the deceased. The court held that the petitioners, as legal heirs, were entitled to compensation for the death of the deceased due to electrocution.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation for the death of the deceased due to electrocution, considering the negligence of the officials in maintaining the electric lines.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles governing assessment of compensation in fatal accidents cases and referred to the judgments in 'National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi' and 'Sarla Verma' to determine the compensation. The court also cited the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 304-A RPC in its decision.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioners were held entitled to a compensation of Rs.16,53,652/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The amount was to be paid by the respondents to the petitioners in equal shares.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

  • The case involves a claim for compensation due to the death of Liaqat Ali, who was electrocuted when coming into contact with a live wire, allegedly due to negligence in maintaining electric lines by the respondents (!) (!) .

  • The petitioners, being the wife and son of the deceased, seek a substantial compensation amount, asserting that the death was caused by official negligence and that the deceased was a responsible and serviceable individual with future earning potential (!) (!) .

  • The respondents argue that the death resulted from the deceased’s own negligence, as he entered a prohibited area where electric wires were present, and thus, the claim for compensation is not maintainable (!) (!) .

  • The court found that the officials of the Power Development Department were negligent in their duty to maintain electric lines safely, which contributed directly to the accident and death (!) .

  • The court held that the respondents are legally liable to compensate the petitioners for the death caused by their negligence (!) .

  • The court adopted principles for calculating compensation based on the deceased’s income, age, and future prospects, considering guidelines for determining loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium (!) (!) (!) (!) .

  • The deceased was 29 years old at the time of death, with a monthly salary of Rs. 7763, and the court applied a 50% addition for future prospects, resulting in a monthly loss of Rs. 11,644 (!) (!) .

  • After accounting for personal expenses and the number of dependents, the court calculated the annual dependency loss at Rs. 93,156 (!) .

  • The total compensation awarded to the petitioners is Rs. 16,53,652, including amounts for dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium, with an interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing (!) (!) .

  • The court directed that the amount be paid equally to the petitioners by the respondents and disposed of the case accordingly (!) .

Please let me know if you need any further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.


JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner Gulshan Ara, on her own and on behalf of her minor son Kashif Ali petitioner No.2, seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.25.35 lacs along with interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner, on account of death of her husband-Liaqat Ali (hereinafter "deceased" for short), due to electrocution, when he came in contact with live fallen down electric wire, near TCP Nagrota on 03.12.2003 at about 5:00 AM, and met the fatal electrical accident.

2. It is being asserted that deceased Liaqat Ali was serving in J&K Police as Selection Grade Constable and was posted on National Highway in Traffic Police; that on 03.12.2003 at about 5.00 AM, when husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner no.2, namely, Liaqat Ali, while going to answer the call of nature towards field got electrocuted with a live wire of electricity, which was lying on a public way and received injuries/burns on the spot; that he was immediately rushed to Govt. Medical College Hospital Jammu, by the police and the people of the vicinity, where he was declared as dead, his post-mortem was conducted there and the case of death was reported as due to shock as a result of electrocution by High Tension Live Wire; that regarding this incident, FIR No. 189/2003 came to be registered at Police Station Nagrota for the alleged negligence of the employees of the respondents-Department, in not maintaining electric lines, properly.

3. It is contended that the untimely tragic departure of the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 only due to negligence in maintaining the proper electric line and this negligence, on the part of the employees of the respondents Department, has resulted in this electrical accident, in which, a young man of 29 years old having about 30 years more service, was ruthlessly charred to death, as the deceased had every possibility to reach to the higher ranks in the Department by earning promotions from time to time and at that time, as per salary certificate for the month of November, 2003 annexed with the petition, the deceased had monthly salary of Rs.7763/- per month. It is being asserted that as per the documents annexed with the petition, it is an admitted case of electrocution and quantum can be decided by this Court as per salary of the deceased and also keeping in view the age of the petitioners as well as of deceased Liaqat Ali and on the basis of the remaining service length of the deceased in police Department. Under the circumstances, the petitioners claiming to be his legal heirs, thus, seek compensation from the respondents for the death of deceased due to electrocution.

4. Pursuant to notice, respondents have filed objections, asserting therein that the present petition is not maintainable as none of the fundamental, statutory or legal rights of the petitioners have been violated; that in this matter disputed questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be adjudicated by invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court; that the respondents were not negligent at all as the death of the deceased-Liaqat Ali occurred because of his own negligence, especially, when the said area falling within the PHE Complex was a prohibited area and was not accessible to any person and the deceased at his own risk for unknown reasons entered into the PHE Complex and because of his own negligence, it resulted into the death of the deceased due to electrocution; that there was no willful negligence on the part of the answering respondents in maintaining the transmission line but because of the technical fault, that too at late hours resulted into the said accident, which thus makes the claim of the petitioners liable to be rejected, as such, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed outrightly.

5. Mr. Mughal learned counsel for the petitioners has, vehemently, argued that the deceased, husband of petitioner No.1 and

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top