Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 960 (PNJ)

Babli v. State Of Haryana

2008-05-01

M.M.KUMAR, SABINA

body2008
Judgment Sabina, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to modify the letter/order, dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) vide which Rs. 80,000/- has been assessed as the compensation amount on account of death of Sanju, son of the petitioners, and further directing them to pay the enhanced compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 7 lacs alongwith 24% interest per annum from the date of accident till its realisation. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of any direction/order for taking penal action/registration of case for the negligent act of respondent No. 7 and his subordinates for the mishap in which the petitioner lost their son, punishable under Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the petitioners, as stated in the writ petition, in brief, is that Sanju was son of the petitioners. He was born on 10.12.2001 and was a student of first class. He died on 4.8.2005 due to falling of electricity pole. On 1.8.2005 a written complaint was made to SOO (Electricity department) i.e., Respondent No. 7, Naguran by Sarpanch and other villagers including grandfather of the deceased saying that there was a tilted electricity pole which could fall at any time. Respondent No. 7, however, did not pay any heed to the said request. On 4.8.2005 at about 5.50 p.m. the said electricity pole broke and fell upon Sanju, who was playing in the street alongwith other children. As a result of this he died at the spot. A DDR was got registered with the police with regard to the accident (Annexure P-2). Post mortem examination was got conducted on the dead body of the deceased. The petitioners approached the respondents for compensation on account of death of their son due to their negligence. After about one year and four months of the accident, the petitioners received an office order No. 229/AC/JJ-389 dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) that Rs. 80,000/- had been sanctioned as compensation amount. However, till date, amount had not been disbursed to the said petitioners. The amount of compensation, calculated by the respondents, was on the lower side. Hence, the present petition was filed by the petitioners. 3. The respondents in their written statement averred that site was in the knowledge of the villagers and the U.H.B.V.N.L. staff had warned the villagers to be careful while passing nearby the pole. The amount of compensation, calculated by the respondents, was on the lower side. Hence, the present petition was filed by the petitioners. 3. The respondents in their written statement averred that site was in the knowledge of the villagers and the U.H.B.V.N.L. staff had warned the villagers to be careful while passing nearby the pole. The respondent or its employees only could not be held responsible for the alleged mishap. The guilty officials had been held responsible and the payment of compensation of Rs. 80,000/- awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased had been recovered from the officials. The petitioners despite intimation had not withdrawn the said amount. The amount of compensation had been correctly awarded to the petitioners in terms of Indian Fatal Accident Act 1855 read with Schedule to Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the amount of compensation allowed to the petitioners deserves to be enhanced. 4. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, Sanju, son of the petitioners, has died on 4.8.2005 at about 5.50 p.m. due to falling of the electricity pole on him. As per the Investigation report of birth of Sanju is 10.12.2001. (Annexure P-6), Executive Engineer found that the fatal accident had occurred on 4.8.2005 due to negligence of U.H.B.V.N.L. staff. The accident could have been avoided if the tilted pole had been set right well in time by the concerned UHBVNL maintenance staff, whereas, no initiative for setting the pole right had been taken by the staff despite request made by the villagers on 1.8.2005. Vide office order dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) sanction was accorded for payment of compensation of Rs. 80,000/- on account of death of Sanju to his legal heirs. 5. Thus the fact that death of Sanju had occurred due to negligence of the UHBVNL staff is evident from the investigation report submitted by the Executive Engineer. The "tilted" pole in question had not been set right well in time by the UriBVNL maintenance staff despite the request having been made by the villagers. The petitioners are the parents of deceased Sanju, who vas a minor child. The determination of damages for loss of Human life is an extremely difficult task especially where the deceased is a child or a non earning person. The petitioners are the parents of deceased Sanju, who vas a minor child. The determination of damages for loss of Human life is an extremely difficult task especially where the deceased is a child or a non earning person. The future of the child is uncertain. The deceased being a child was not earning anything but had a prospect to earn. Son of the petitioners has died and the loss suffered by them can not be calculated in terms of money. The paramount consideration of the matter is only to protect the interest of the petitioners so that the amount awarded to them by way of compensation serves the purpose and object of compensating them for the loss occasioned by tragedy of the accident. The mental pain and suffering as well as continuous agony of the petitioners can be termed as enormous. In order to determine the amount of compensation, which depends upon many uncertain factors an over all picture has to be taken into consideration to form an estimate, which is some time calculation of compensation based upon speculation. A just and fair would be what the beneficiaries would have received from the deceased had the deceased lived and earned as support for their maintenance. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case in mind, we are of the opinion that it would be just and fair to award Rs. 2.50 lacs as compensation to the petitioners on all counts as the amount of compensation sanctioned by the respondents is on a lower side. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the amount of compensation sanctioned by the respondents vide order dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) is enhanced to Rs. 2.50 lacs. The respondents are directed to make the payment of compensation to the petitioners within three months from today and the amount of compensation shall be shared by them equally. However, the prayer of the petitioners for registration of case against respondent No. 7 and his subordinates on account of their negligent act, which resulted in the mishap, punishable under the Indian Penal Code is declined. No order as to costs.