JUDGEMENT

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. This intra Court appeal by the then State of Jammu & Kashmir (now UT of Jammu & Kashmir) and four others is directed against the judgment dated 01.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge ["the Writ Court"] in OWP No.192/2004 titled Manjeet Kour and others v. State of J&K and others. In terms of the judgment impugned, the respondents herein have been held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 11,50,000/- minus a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, already granted by way of interim compensation, along with interest @ 7.5% to be apportioned among the respondents as per the detail given in the judgment itself.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the judgment impugned, we deem it appropriate to give brief factual background leading to the filing of this appeal.

Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, namely, Raghuvir Singh got electrocuted on 05.03.2003 at about 5 a.m. when he inadvertently came into contact with live/exposed electric transformer. The incident was reported to the police and FIR No. 23 dated 05.03.2003 came to be registered in Police Station, Miran Sahib Tehsil R.S. Pura. The body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem wherein the doctors found the deceased having died due to burn injuries received at different parts of the body. The respondents approached the appellants with a claim for compensation but the same was refuted by the appellants on the ground that the deceased Raghuvir Singh had lost his life due to his own negligence and, therefore, the appellant-department was not obliged to compensate them. Feeling helpless and dejected, the respondents filed OWP No. 192/2004, which was considered by the Writ Court and disposed of vide judgment impugned dated 01.02.2017.

3. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellants primarily on the ground that the Writ Court has allowed the writ petition and granted compensation to the respondents without returning a specific finding as to the negligence of the appellant-department. It is argued that the incident of electrocution, which consumed life of the deceased happened due to the negligence of the deceased, who had strayed into the live electric transformer kept away from the road at a secured place. The appellants have also found fault with the judgment impugned in respect of the computation of compensation made by the Writ Court, in that, it is contended that in view of the settled legal position enunciated in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the wife and four minor children were entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each on account of loss of consortium whereas the Writ Court has granted 1.00 lakh to the wife and Rs. 50,000/-each to the children under this head.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the Writ Court is perfectly legal and unquestionable. The Writ Court has returned a clear finding with regard to the negligence of the appellants in maintaining and securing the exposed electric transformer installed on the roadside.

5. The aforesaid finding has been returned by the Writ Court on the basis of report submitted by the Enquiry Officer i.e. Munsiff, R.S. Pura, who was directed by the Writ Court to conduct such enquiry and submit a report to it. It has clearly come out in the enquiry that the appellant-department had not put up any signboard or marking in front of the transformer to caution the people to stay away. The Enquiry Officer also found that the transformer was not properly fenced and,