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

2023 Supreme(J&K) 739

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Sham Dev Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors. –Respondent
OWP No. 2248 of 2018
Decided on : 22-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vipan Gandotra
For the Respondent: Monika Kohli; Amit Gupta

The court established liability of the State as a welfare body to compensate for injuries to minors, asserting that minors cannot be held liable for negligence while emphasizing the negligence of the Power Development Department.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 82 - Negligence - Child injured due to electrocution caused by high tension wires; compensation sought for injuries resulting in amputation of both arms. The child, 5 years old at the time of the incident, was playing on his roof when the wires were within reach, indicating negligence on part of the Power Development Department. Compensation assessed for loss of future earnings, pain and suffering, and costs of artificial limbs. (Paras 1, 10, 18, 19)

(B) Minor liability - Child below seven years incapable of negligence; court recognizes that liability lies with the Power Development Department for failure to maintain safety standards. Court asserts welfare state obligations to compensate victims to ensure dignity in life. (Paras 10, 12)

(C) Quantum of compensation is to be assessed on the principles applicable to motor vehicle accidents despite being an electrocution case. (Paras 11, 18)

Facts of the case:
A minor suffered severe injuries resulting in the amputation of both arms after contacting live wires close to his home, the State failed to act prior to the incident despite prior notifications.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, evaluating various heads of damages for compensation due to extensive loss and permanent disability.

Issues: The court addressed the negligence of the Power Development Department and the liability towards the petitioner for the incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The established principle indicates that minors are protected by law from civil negligence claims, thus establishing the liability of the State as a welfare entity to compensate for loss caused by its negligence.

Result: Respondents are directed to pay Rs. 57,75,200/- to the petitioner, along with applicable interest.

Table of Content
1. the impact of an incident on a child’s earning potential. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented regarding negligence and responsibility. (Para 4 , 6)
3. judicial observations on safety and legal responsibility. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. determining compensation based on case precedents. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. final decision on compensation awarded. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGEMENT

1. The hands of the poor villager are his earning tools and if they are lost in an accident/incident, his earning capacity would be reduced to zero and he would either starve or turn beggar, if not supported by the family or the State.

2. The petitioner, who was of five years of age, while playing on the roof of his house, came in to contact with the 11 KV high tension wire, which was passing through the roof of his house, due to which he suffered serious injuries resulting into amputation of both of his arms. It stated by the petitioner that height of the wires was only around 4 feet from the roof of his house and this fact was already brought to the notice of the respondent No. 3 by one Nazir Ahmad, who was also residing in the same vicinity. The said application was forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Power Development Department for taking immediate steps for the safety of the people but no action was taken by the respondents.

3. The factum of electrocution suffered by the petitioner was also recorded in the daily dairy of Police Station, Budhal on 25.02.2017 (Annexure-C to the writ petition). After the incident, the petitioner was referred to District Hospital Rajouri and then to Govt. Medical Hospital, Jammu, wherefrom he was further referred to PGI, Chandigarh. He was admitted on 26.02.2017 and discharged on 11.05.2017. After discharge of the petitioner, the father of the petitioner submitted an application (Annexure-F to the writ petition) to the respondent No. 4, wherein besides providing the details of the incident, a request was also made for the grant of relief. A copy of the application was forwarded by the respondent No. 4 to the Naib Tehsildar, Budhal for the submission of report, which was submitted by the Patwari and Naib Tehsildar on 18.07.2017. The respondent No. 4 forwarded the detailed report to respondent No. 3 on 09.10.2017. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 directed the District Social Welfare Officer, Rajouri- respondent No. 5 to sanction the monthly pension in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner had suffered 100% disability due to electric burns. Despite recommendation of the case of the petitioner for pension, the petitioner was paid only a meagre amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as an ex-gratia relief in view of the injuries suffered by him. The petitioner further claims to have approached various authorities for grant of just compensation through his father but till date except an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs, nothing has been paid to the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that on account of the injuries suffered by him because of the negligence of the respondent-Power Development Department, the whole of the life of the petitioner has been ruined. The petitioner, as such, has claimed the compensation for costs of artificial limbs, wear and tear of the artificial limbs, pain and suffering, amenities of life, loss of chance of marriage, loss of future income etc.

4. The respondents 1 & 2 have filed the response stating therein that as per the verification conducted by the department, the petitioner was playing with an iron rod on the roof of house and said iron rod accidently got in contact with 11 KV High Tension live conductor and as such, there was no negligence on the part of the Power Development Department. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have objected the writ petition on the ground that it was because of negligence of the petitioner that he suffered the injuries. It is further stated that ha

    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