Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1476 (ALL)

U. P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. D. M. , MAU

2017-06-01

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has preferred this petition against the order of the Collector dated 26.5.2016 passed under Section 6 of The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 holding the petitioner liable for payment of Rupees Five Lakh as compensation to the heirs of the deceased Jamwant and a sum of Rupees One Lakh to the injured Balwant. 3. The facts of the case reveal that on 8.12.2011, the aforesaid two school children were electrocuted with falling of pole of high tension power line of 11,000 volts. In the said accident, one of them Jamwant died and other was seriously injured. 4. There is no dispute that the aforesaid accident had occurred due to falling of aforesaid pole, which was not in a proper condition. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 3 of the Act, the Collector has no power to award compensation above Rs. 25,000/- in such cases. 6. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act provides for the payment of compensation, as specified in the Schedule, by the owner in the case of death, injury or damage, on no fault basis. 7. The aforesaid provision or the amount payable thereunder is not applicable where the application for claim has been made under Section 6 of the Act. 8. Section 6 of the Act provides that an application for claim of relief may be made to the Collector and Section 7 of the Act provides that the Collector on receipt of such application, after giving notice, an opportunity of hearing to the parties and after holding due enquiry, may make an award and grant compensation, as may appear to him to be just. 9. The award of just compensation is not limited to any specific amount. 10. In view of the provision of Sections 6 and 7 of the aforesaid Act read together, it is apparent that the power of Collector to award the compensation is distinct from that of grant of compensation on no fault basis by the owner as envisaged under Section 3 of the Act. The aforesaid power of making an award is an adjudicatory power rather than that of award of compensation for no fault liability under Section 3 of the Act. 11. The aforesaid power of making an award is an adjudicatory power rather than that of award of compensation for no fault liability under Section 3 of the Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Collector has not committed any error of law in awarding compensation of Rupees Five Lakh and Rupees One Lakh respectively by the impugned order and the argument that he has no power to award the compensation of more than Rs. 25,000/- is wholly untenable and stands rejected. 12. The petition is dismissed.