Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 700 (JK)

Ravi Kumar v. State of J&K

2023-12-02

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2023
JUDGEMENT 1. Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the compensation for an amount of Rs. 50.00 lacs on account of injuries suffered by him in an incident of electrocution while performing his duty on the instructions of the respondents. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he was engaged as a casual labourer by the respondents on consolidated wages of Rs. 3,750/- per month in the month of January, 2012. On 04.07.2012, the petitioner was directed by the Junior Engineer and Foreman to accompany other officials to Supwal to work on 11 KV line. The petitioner and the other employees, namely, Mohinder Singh and Bodh Raj were conveyed by the officers of the Power Development Department that the Department had shut down the 11 KV line for conducting the restoration work. The petitioner was directed by his superior officers to climb the electric poll and cut the fuse so as to accomplish the assigned work of restoration of electric supply. The petitioner claims to have been assured by the employees of the department that the electric supply had already been snapped and there was no electric energy in the above stated 11 KV Ariel line. Thereafter, the petitioner climbed the poll to do the job on 11 KV line and when the petitioner attempted to cut the fuse of said 11 KV Ariel line, he received the electric shock as the said line was alive and carrying electric energy/supply. The petitioner fell down and received severe injuries as well as an amputation of above elbow left upper limb. FIR was also registered in that regard. The petitioner claims to have approached the respondents for grant of compensation. Accordingly, when his request was not acceded to, the petitioner approached this Court through the medium of this petition, on the ground that because of the negligence of the respondents by not cutting the electric supply to the 11 KV Ariel line, the petitioner received an electric shock resulting into an amputation of left arm, due to which the petitioner has suffered permanent disability of 65%. The injury has incapacitated the petitioner to earn his livelihood and enjoy his life. Besides, the petitioner has lost the prospect of marriage and amenities of life. 3. The injury has incapacitated the petitioner to earn his livelihood and enjoy his life. Besides, the petitioner has lost the prospect of marriage and amenities of life. 3. The respondents have filed the response stating therein that disputed questions of facts have been raised by the petitioner, which cannot be adjudicated through the medium of writ petition. It is further stated that the Jammu and Kashmir Government has come up with a policy for grant of ex-gratia amount in such cases of electrocution, where the Government grants ex-gratia relief in the case of death and disability arisen due to the negligence of the department. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any document to assess his case for compensation under rules. It is further averred that the petitioner has claimed an exaggerated amount of Rs. 50 lacs which cannot be granted to him. It is further stated that as per the statement of then J.E., one labourer Ravi Kumar engaged for day today works got electrocuted near Supwal while working on 11 KV Old Janipur feeder at 9 AM (approx.) on 04.07.2012 and he was immediately shifted to District Hospital, Samba. It is further averred that the shut down had been taken by the concerned Junior Engineer as per log book. 4. Mr. Vipan Gandotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents cannot wriggle out of their liability to compensate the petitioner by simply taking refuge under the plea that disputed questions of facts are involved, particularly when they have admitted the negligence on the part of their officials while pleading in their response that the petitioner has not submitted any document to process his case for compensation. 5. Per contra, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the respondents during the course of his arguments, has submitted two Government orders bearing Nos. 328-PDD of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 and Order No. 454-F of 2019 dated 24.10.2019. He further submitted that the policy dated 24.11.2011 was in vogue when the incident took place, as such, compensation beyond the limit laid down in the order dated 24.11.2011 cannot be granted. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. 328-PDD of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 and Order No. 454-F of 2019 dated 24.10.2019. He further submitted that the policy dated 24.11.2011 was in vogue when the incident took place, as such, compensation beyond the limit laid down in the order dated 24.11.2011 cannot be granted. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondents reveals that the respondents have admitted the incident of electrocution in which the petitioner suffered injuries, though they have stated that the shutdown was taken by the J.E. as per the log book. In view of the admission by the respondents in respect of incident of electrocution, the only issue that is required to be determined is with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner by the respondents. The respondents have come up with a policy for grant of ex-gratia relief to the departmental and non-departmental persons, who are killed or incapacitated due to electrocution caused by the negligence of the Power Development Department. The Government Order dated 24.11.2011 provides for grant of ex-gratia relief of Rs. 01 lac in case of total disability and Rs. 30,000/- in case of partial disability, whereas the Government order dated 24.10.2019 provides for grant of ex-gratia relief of Rs. 7.5 lacs in case of total disability and Rs. 2.00 lacs in case of partial disability. The Government order dated 24.10.2019 provides that the payment shall be subject to condition that the relief granted by the Government under the Workmen's Compensation Act, shall be adjusted while making payment of the Ex-gratia relief. The term 'ex-gratia' means out of grace or gratuitous. The ex-gratia relief in fact is the amount which the Government has volunteered to pay to the victims of electrocution due to negligence of the Power Development Department. The policy for grant of ex-gratia relief cannot come in the way of Courts to compensate the victims for the electrocution in an appropriate manner. Though there are no settled principles for determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of electrocution but the Courts have been applying the principles applicable for grant of compensation in Motor Vehicles Accident in cases of electrocution as well. The petitioner's claim is that he was working on consolidated pay of Rs. Though there are no settled principles for determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of electrocution but the Courts have been applying the principles applicable for grant of compensation in Motor Vehicles Accident in cases of electrocution as well. The petitioner's claim is that he was working on consolidated pay of Rs. 3,750/- per month though the respondents have denied his status but have admitted that the petitioner was engaged on day to day basis. Be that as it may, the amount of Rs. 3,750/- can be considered as monthly income of the petitioner, which by no means can be termed as exaggerated or exorbitant. The petitioner suffered an amputation of above elbow upper left limb, duly substantiated by the disability certificate issued by the C.M.O. Samba. As per the certificate, the petitioner has suffered permanent disability of 65%. The petitioner was a young man of 25 years of age at the time of incident. The petitioner has submitted that he has lost the marriage prospect. The petitioner used to earn his livelihood by the use of his hands and because of amputation, his earnings must have been reduced substantially. He would also require artificial limb and the petitioner is also required to be compensated for disfiguration due to amputation of limb. The compensation is also required to be paid for "Pain and Suffering" and "Loss of Amenities of Life". Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Anr. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Anr. (2017) 16 SCC 680 , as the petitioner has suffered disability of 65%, the loss of future earnings would be Rs. 7,37,100/- (By taking monthly income as Rs. 3,750/- and enhancing it by 40% and applying multiplier of 18). The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2 lacs each under the heads of "Loss of Amenities" and "Pain and Suffering". Further, Rs. 2 lacs each are required to be paid for compensation on account of disfigurement and as cost of artificial limb including the maintenance thereof. 8. In Mohd. Sabeer v. Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted an amount of Rs. Further, Rs. 2 lacs each are required to be paid for compensation on account of disfigurement and as cost of artificial limb including the maintenance thereof. 8. In Mohd. Sabeer v. Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted an amount of Rs. 2 lacs each under the heads of "pain and suffering", "loss of amenities of life" and "loss due to disability and disfigurement", to the victim who had suffered amputation of leg. Further compensation for prosthetic limb was also granted. Though the compensation for an amount of Rs. 12,80,000/- was granted for the purchase and maintenance of prosthetic leg but in the present case due to absence of evidence as to the cost of prosthetic limb, this court deems it proper to grant an amount of Rs. 2 lacs as cost and maintenance of prosthetic limb. In Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 786, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has granted Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for loss of marriage prospects. 9. Accordingly, the compensation to which the petitioner is held entitled to is assessed as under:- 1) Loss of future earnings = Rs. 7,37,100/- 2) Loss of Amenities of life = Rs. 2,00,000/- 3) Pain and suffering = Rs. 2,00,000/- 4) Loss of marriage prospect = Rs. 50,000/- 5) Cost & Maintenance of Artificial limb = Rs. 2,00,000/- 6) Compensation for disability and disfiguration = Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Rs. 15,87,100/- 10. In view of above, the respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,87,100/- (rupees fifteen lacs and eighty seven thousand and one hundred only) to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum, except upon the component of future earnings, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.