Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
Kamaljit Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others – Respondents
CWP No.18147 of 1996
Decided On : 17-04-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate, Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, Mr. Daljit Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. H.S. Sitta, AAG, Mr. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the responsibility of the electricity board to ensure safety and the determination of appropriate compensation for electrocution injuries.
Headnote:
Compensation - Electrocution - 11 KV wires - [Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 135, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304A] - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to the electrocution case. The court emphasized the responsibility of the electricity board to ensure safety and the consequences of negligence in such cases. The court also referred to the case law to determine the appropriate compensation for the victim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's son suffered electrocution due to contact with loose wires, resulting in the amputation of both hands. The petitioner sought compensation for the injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's son deserved additional compensation beyond the initial amount awarded, considering the severity of the injuries and the long-term impact on the victim's life.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of appropriate compensation for the victim's injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's son deserved additional compensation due to the severity of the injuries and the long-term impact on his life.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the amount of compensation claimed, in addition to the initial amount already paid.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. The petitioner is the father of Sumit Kumar, who has prayed for the issuance a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation on account of injuries suffered by his son Sumit Kumar due to electrocution in which his both hands have been amputated.
2. It is alleged that on 3.3.1996 at about 6:30 PM, Sumit Kumar, who was 6 years of age at that time, while playing on the roof of his house, came into contact with the loose wires and was electrocuted. Sumit Kumar was taken to Chandra Hospital, Derabassi and later on shifted to PGI, Chandigarh on the same day but in order to save his life his both hands were amputated. He was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh on 3.3.1996 and discharged on 15.3.1996. The petitioner has alleged that he had written two letters to the respondents on 15.3.1995 and on 21.6.1995 for removing the high tension wire of 11 KV, crossing over his house, but to no effect and ultimately on the fateful day when Sumit Kumar was playing on the roof of his house, suddenly strong wind started blowing because of which he came in contact with loose wires which got entangled with the high tension wire and was electrocuted.
3. In the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4, their stand is that the petitioner has himself committed a mistake as he has failed to give notice to the respondents to shift/remove electric wire/poles before raising construction of the house in the fields. It is also averred that the petitioner had informed the respondents on 26.4.1996 about the accident which took place on 3.3.1996 and registered the FIR on 05.05.1996. The respondents have also alleged that there is at least 12 feet distance between the roof and wire which cannot be touched until and unless an iron rod is used.
4. At the time of hearing on 13.11.1997, this Court had passed the following order : -
“When the case was taken up on the last date of hearing, counsel for the respondent-Board sought time to seek instructions in the matter of payment of compensation to the petitioner for the disability caused to the minor child who was electrocuted from 11 KV wires passing over the house of the petitioner in village Dera Bassi. Today, Mr. Khullar states that inspite of requests the petitioner did not furnish the birth certificate of the minor child nor did he supply the certificate showing the extent of disability. Copy of the birth certificate has been handed over to the learned counsel for the board in Court. As regards the extent of disability, we direct the Board to proceed on the basis that the minor child has suffered 100% disability as both his arms have been amputated as a result of the accident and he has also received a serious head injury. The injured child is present in Court and the disability suffered by him is obvious.
Mr. Khullar states that the Chief Engineer of the Board is the competent authority to fix the amount of compensation to be paid to the petitioner. He seeks three weeks’ time to enable the competent officer to take a decision thereon.
The case is adjourned to 5.12.1997.
Meanwhile, the competent officer is directed to decide in regard to the amount of compensation which the Board is willing to pay and inform the court on the next date of hearing. We do hope and expect that the competent authority will take compassionate view in the matter and fix a reasonable amount of compensation to be paid to the petitioner.”
5. Ultimately on 17.12.1997, the following order was passed by this Court : -
“Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 has placed on record sanction order whereby an amount of Rs.60,000/- has been sanctioned as compensation to the unfortunate victim. Let the amount of Rs.60,000/- be paid to the claimant within 10 days from today.
Admitted with regard to find out as to whether the victim deserves more compensation or not.
The amount of Rs.60,000/- shall be deposited in the name of Sumit Verma in a fixed deposit from year to year basis. The child may withdraw the am
