JUDGMENT : 1. At this pre-admission stage, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal, in view of the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, seeks indulgence of this Court for issuance of appropriate writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 12.00 lakhs, on account of 40% permanent disability suffered by her due to the negligence of the respondents. 3. Petitioner pleaded that on 16.01.2011, while she was going to a shop and when she reached at Chatha Mill, Main Road, Jammu at about 7:00 pm, all of a sudden, live HT Voltage Electric Line broke and fell on her, thereby causing injuries on her body as well as on right hand and shoulder; that she was immediately rushed to the GMC Hospital, Jammu, where she remained admitted and was discharged on 11.02.2011 and during the treatment, the petitioner’s index finger chassed with amputation of index finger; that respondent nos. 4&5 employees of the Electric Department as Incharge of Chatha area and subordinate to the other respondents, were duty bound to maintain the electric wires of said area, but they had not maintained the electric line of that area, therefore, the said respondents were careless and negligent while performing their duties under law; that the matter was reported at Police Post Chatha and after investigation, the concerned police, produced the chargesheet for their negligence, against the respondent nos. 4&5. 4. 4&5. 4. It is being pleaded next that the State being a welfare State is having its liability to ensure the safety of its subjects as the right to life and liberty has been granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the State being engaged in hazards and dangerous activities, is strictly under an obligation to compensate the petitioner in respect of the negligence or carelessness on the part of its officials; that in the present case, the respondents were negligent in not maintaining and removing the old electric lines and this inaction on their part had put the life of the inhabitants into danger, as such, the petitioner who became permanently disabled on account of the negligence of the respondents, is entitled to compensation, claiming to the tune of Rs.12.00 lacs. 5. Pursuant to notice, respondents filed objections, asserting therein that the present petition is not maintainable as none of the fundamental, statutory or legal rights of the petitioner has been violated; that it involved the disputed question of law and facts which cannot be adjudicated by invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court; that the respondents have come up with the policy in such like cases of electrocution, where the government grants ex-gratia amount to the tune of Rs.3.00 lacs in the case of death and likewise structured arrangement has been prepared and crystallized in cases of grievous injuries and disabilities but the petitioner had not submitted any document to process her case for compensation permissible under rules; that maintenance of electric wire is taken up from time to time and electric fault is not in the control of an individual, as due to overloading the wires conductors get snapped, however, the shutdown is required for replacement of the worn out conductor, the concerned field staff keeps doing it for the upkeep of the system; that, infact, various schemes have been introduced to change the conductor to cables; that there is no negligence on the part of the respondents as the petitioner never approached the respondent-department for getting any compensation along with documents for processing of her case, as such, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed outrightly. 6. Heard, perused and considered. 7. 6. Heard, perused and considered. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has suffered 40% permanent disability due to the negligence of the respondents, as they failed to protect the life of the petitioner, as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the respondents being engaged in hazardous and dangerous activities are liable to pay compensation, as claimed to the tune of Rs. 12.00 lacs, by the petitioner. He has further argued that after the disablement of the petitioner, she also totally lost her holding capacity of her right hand and became disabled lady, unable to do her labourer work in future and also unable to maintain her children and family, as such, she lost her 100% working capacity of her right hand. It was finally prayed that the present petition be allowed and petitioner be granted compensation. 8. Learned AAG, ex adverso, argued that the respondents were not negligent at all, as the petitioner suffered injuries because of her own negligence. He has further argued that the J&K Government has come up with the policy in such like cases of electrocution, where the government grants ex-gratia amount to the tune of Rs.3.00 lacs in the case of death and also in cases of grievous injuries and disability. He has further argued that there is no negligence on the part of the respondents as the petitioner had never approached the respondent-department for claiming any compensation, along with documents for processing of her case and finally prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “M P Electricity Board vs Shail Kumari,” reported in 2002 AIR (SC) 551, wherein a case of live electric wire snapped and fell on road due to illegal act of a stranger for pilferage purpose, deceased came in contact with live wire and died of electrocution, the Electricity Board was held liable to pay compensation, even though there was no negligence on its part. Vide judgment dated 17.12.2014 passed the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled “Raman v Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors” (Civil Appeal No. 11466 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8113 of 2014), by holding that a boy aged 4 years electrocuted by Live High Tension wire of Bijli Vitran Nigam who lost both his legs and one arm, maintained order of the Single Bench of the High Court, whereby the petitioner was held entitled to compensation of Rs.60.00 lacs. 10. Petitioner, a labourer by profession from Bihar, at the age of 40 years had met with an accident of electrocution, at Chatha Mill, Main Road, Jammu, while she was going to purchase household items on a shop on 16.01.2011, when she got electric shocks due to live HT-Voltage Electric Wire broken and fallen on her, as she received deep burn injuries, as a result of electrocution and remained hospitalized in GMC Hospital Jammu. It is an admitted case, that petitioner received electric shocks, in coming in contact with live HT-Voltage Electric wire, which had suddenly broken and fallen on the petitioner. Registration of FIR No. 11/2011 at Police Station Satwari is a sufficient proof to prove negligence on the part of respondents. As per medical report, issued by District Medical Board of Doctors, it has been certified that the petitioner became permanently disabled for 40% as the petitioner’s right hand’s index and middle fingers amputated through anti-joint. Petitioner for her disablement caused due to negligence of respondents is thus found entitled to compensation, in view of tortuous and vicarious liability of the respondents. The next question which comes for consideration is the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to, by way of compensation in the present petition. The Court infuse some guess work while assessing the future earning of the petitioner as the petitioner had suffered right, index and middle fingers amputated through anti-joint. 11. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner on 16.01.2011, immediately after suffering electric shock due to live HT-Voltage Electric Wire suddenly broken and fallen on her, was rushed to GMC Hospital, Jammu where she received treatment and remained admitted from 16.01.2011 to 11.02.2011. The injury suffered by the petitioner, due to electric burn, unfortunately resulted into amputation to right hand’s index and middle fingers through anti-joint. The injury suffered by the petitioner, due to electric burn, unfortunately resulted into amputation to right hand’s index and middle fingers through anti-joint. The disability certificate issued dated 27.05.2011 by the Board of Doctors of Government records 40% permanent disability of the petitioner due to the injuries suffered by her. 12. The physical disability though certified by the Medical Board is 40%, however, such a disability has to be related to functional disability. Schedule-1 under Section 2(1) and (4) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, with regard to determine percentage of loss of earning capacity in permanent or permanent partial disability, is handy for this purpose. Petitioner has suffered permanent partial disability of her right hand with amputation of two fingers (index and middle) which as per Item No.9 of Part-II of Schedule amounts to 20% loss of earning capacity. Therefore, the loss of earning capacity of the petitioner has to be accepted at 20%. 13. Petitioner’s age at the time of unfortunate accident was 40 years. She was stated to be a labourer from the State of Bihar. In the year 2011, on a guesswork, the daily payment to such workers even if unskilled, was around Rs.200/-. On such a fact to be noticed, the monthly income of the petitioner, even if she would have got work for twenty four days in a month, should be Rs. 4800/-. At the age of 40 years, the future income is to be assessed by stepping up the same with 25%. With addition of 25%, the income of the petitioner is to be accepted at (4800+1200)=Rs.6000/-. On a loss of 20% of the earning capacity in view of Schedule of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923, monthly loss of income shall be Rs.1200/- which annually comes to (1200x12)=Rs.14,400/-. This figure has to be accepted as multiplicand. 14. Having regard to the age of 40 years, on the principles of law laid down in case titled “Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr”., reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 and reiterated in case titled “National Insurance Company vs Pranay Sethi & Ors”, reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 , by the Hon’ble Apex Court, at the age of 40 years, the applicable ‘multiplier’ shall be 15. 15. With annual loss of Rs. 15. With annual loss of Rs. 14,400/- as multiplicand and use of 15 as multiplier, the total loss of income to the petitioner comes to (14400x15) Rs.2,16,000/-. Besides loss of income, the petitioner is also found entitled to Rs.50,000/- as medical expenses on her treatment; Rs.50,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for amenities of life. Petitioner is thus found entitled to the compensation for disability as per following details: 1. Loss of income Rs.2,16,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs.50,000/- 4. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 5. Damages for amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.4,16,000/- 16. Having regard to the foregoing discussion and reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is allowed/granted holding petitioner entitled to Rs.4,16,000/- (four lac and sixteen thousand rupees only) as compensation for her permanent disability along with simple interest @ 10% per annum except the loss of income, from the date of institution of this petition, till realization of the amount. The respondents are directed to make payment, within six weeks, from the date a certified copy of this judgment is made available to the respondent nos.1 and 2 for compliance. No order as to costs. 17. The writ petition along with pending application(s) is disposed of.