The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the court to grant 'just compensation' under the PLI Act, considering the age, income, and dependents of the deceased, as per the principles for determining compensation from relevant judgments.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Vasudeo Mishra, who appears on behalf of the respondents no.3 and 4.

2. The facts that emerged from Writ-C No.1002174 of 2015 are that one Sri Amit Kumar Pandey died on account of coming into contact with live wire on 12.10.2011 at 08:45 AM due to electric shock. It is also on record that with regard to the incident, an FIR was registered as Case Crime No.358 of 2011, under Section 304A of the IPC against the officers of the electricity department on account of the death of Sri Amit Kumar Pandey. The petitioners made several applications for grant of compensation but the same was not done. It is specifically pleaded in para 8 of the writ petition that with regard to the live wires, a complaint was also made to the electricity department and apprehension was also expressed that the improper laying of electricity lines and that too fraudulently can lead to an accident anytime which can result in loss of life and property.

3. As no compensation was paid by the electricity department, an application was filed under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (in short ' the PLI Act') before the District Magistrate wherein it was stated that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased Amit Kumar Pandey was 23 years and was earned Rs.9,000/-per month. It was also stated that Amit Kumar Pandey was survived by his father, mother, wife and two minor children. It was also stated that on the date of incident i.e. 12.10.2011 at about 08:45 AM, the deceased was working along with his uncle Brijesh Pandey. While going to the field, the uncle of the deceased came in contact with the electricity and when the deceased tried to save him, he got electrocuted and died. It is also recorded that after the death of Amit Kumar Pandey, post-mortem was also conducted. The cause of death as shown in the post-mortem report is shock as a result of electrocution.

4. The facts that emerge from Writ-C No.1002173 of 2015 are that as per the allegations one Brijesh Pandey died in the same incident in which Amit Kumar Pandey also died arising out of electrocution, as such, a claim petition was filed under Section 6 of the PLI Act before the District Magistrate alleging that the claimants i.e. father and mother were entitled for compensation on account of death of Brijesh Pandey. It is stated that he also died in the incident which took place on 12.10.2011 in which Amit Kumar Pandey died. An FIR was lodged and a post-mortem was conducted over the body of Brijesh Pandey which discloses the cause of death as shock as a result of electrocution. It was alleged that late Brijesh Pandey was aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.9000/-per month and on the application of the claimants petitioners herein, the District Magistrate granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac) vide order dated 13.03.2015 on the same reasoning as contained in the award passed in the case of Amit Kumar Pandey.

5. The Counsel for the petitioners argues that the amount of compensation as awarded by the District Magistrate amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac) is arbitrary and cannot be termed as 'just compensation'. He argues that in terms of the mandate of Section 6 of the PLI Act, it was incumbent upon the authority to award 'just compensation' after an inquiry which the District Magistrate has failed to do. He argues that the District Magistrate has merely followed a Government Order by awarding Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac) as compensation which is neither provided under the Act nor under the Rules and thus, it is prayed that the amount as awarded on 13.03.2015 be enhanced and the petitioner be paid just compensation for which he is entitled in accordance with law.

6. In support of the said submiss