IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Kaneez Fatima - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others - Respondents
Writ C No.25065 of 2022
Decided on : 09-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of husband's death and claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding compensation and legal entitlements. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis on compensation calculation principles. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. summarization of court findings and directions. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 5. final conclusion and orders of the court. (Para 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
1. Heard Shri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondent and Shri M.C.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advicate assisted by Ms. Arti Raje, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
Brief Facts:-
2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the petitioner’s husband, namely Hani Khan died on 10.04.2022 on account of electrocution by 11 KV overhead line which was installed by the respondents at a height of less than 4.7 meters in breach of Rule 77 of of the Rules, 1956 and non-maintenance of the aforesaid line by the respondents as per provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1956.
3. As per admitted case of the respondents, the death of the husband of the petitioner was caused on 10.04.2022. The petitioner submitted entire desired papers including certificate of Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College and Hospital, Jhansi, dated 10.04.2022 in which cause of death of her husband has been shown as electric current, Panchnama dated 10.04.2022 and death certificate dated 20.04.2022 etc. of her husband.
4. Petitioner's statement was recorded by the competent authority/Electricity Safety Officer on 13.04.2022. Form 4 under Section 161 (2) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 was submitted by the Deputy Director, Electricity Safety, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Jhansi, Region, Jhansi on 18.04.2022 in which the entire particulars of the incidence and the investigation report etc. were well mentioned with reference to documentary evidences, namely, first information report dated 11.04.2022, detailed report dated 11.04.2022, police report, medical report received on 15.04.2022 and investigation report dated 13.04.2022 etc. The fact of cause of death of the petitioner's husband being electric current and negligence of officers and employees were also recorded in the said report.
5. On 18.04.2022 the Deputy Director, Electricity Safety, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, submitted a report to the respondent no.2 requesting him to take action as per relevant Government orders and also submitted that investigation under Section 161 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 has been completed and recommendation for compensation to the petitioner has been made which is to be paid by the Electricity Distribution Corporation. Thus, by 18.04.2022 all the required investigation and reports were submitted by the competent authorities to the respondent no.2 for payment of compensation to the petitioner.
6. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that her deceased husband was working as a contractor of M/s. Sri Ramdoot Steelfab and his total income was around Rs.3,50,000/-per annum and in support thereof she has also submitted proof of income namely income tax return/acknowledgement relating to A.Ys. 2017-18, 2019-20 (Net Total Income Rs.3,47,630/-) and 2021-22 (Net Total Income Rs.3,71,230/-), copies of which have been collectively filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The contents of paragraph-8 of the writ petition regarding annual income of the deceased to be Rs.3,50,000/-supported by documentary evidences as aforementioned has been admitted by the respondents in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit/affidavit of compliance dated 06.09.2022.
7. Thus, it is undisputed that the in
Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P.
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India
Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi
Chairman, Railway Board and others Vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and others
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416.
Death of Sawinder Singh Grower In re 1995 Supp4 SCC 450
Inder Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 702
Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas
Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai
G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas
Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.
H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard
Indian Medical Assn. v. V.P. Shantha
Jacob George (Dr) v. State of Kerala (1994) 3 SCC 430
Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Kaushalya v. State of Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 754
Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari
Maharaja Agrasen Hospital v. Rishabh Sharma
Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee
Manju Bhatia v. New Delhi Municipal Council (1997) 6 SCC 370
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka
Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben
Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 265
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 433
Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner
Royal Sundaram alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud
Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
R. Valli & Ors. vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (2022) 5 SCC 107
Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan
Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar (1991) 3 SCC 482
State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995) 4 SCC 262
Saheli, A Women's Resources center v. Commissioner of Police
In fatal motor accidents addition of notional income of deceased towards future prospects of deceased is integral component of compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method and the use of minimum wages for determining notional income in cases of motor accidents involving the dea....
The court established that actual income evidence must be prioritized over notional income in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicle Act.
The court established that the notional income for a non-earning child should be set at Rs.30,000 per annum, applying a multiplier of 15 for calculating compensation, considering inflation and emotio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.