Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Territory Of J&K And Others vs Rani Gupta And Others on 4 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on : 01.05.2023
Pronounced on: 04.05.2023
LPA No.88/2021
CM No.6733/2021
Union Territory of J&K and others
.....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG
versus
Rani Gupta and others .....Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Prem Sadotra, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Tashi Rabstan - Judge
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated
17.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No.975/2008, whereby
the learned Single Judge while allowing the petition, held that the writ
petitioners are entitled to compensation of rupees ten lacs on account of death
of one Vijay Kumar Gupta, i.e., husband writ petitioner No.1, father of writ
petitioners 2 and 3 and son of writ petitioner No.4.
2. The facts, as gathered from the writ file, are that one Vijay Kumar
Gupta, husband of writ petitioner No.1, a shopkeeper by profession, died on
01.09.2008 due to electrocution by high intensity electric line, which had fallen
down on the pathway when he went to morning walk in the park alongside the
2 LPA 88/2021
bank of canal at Rajpura Chungi, Jammu. Accordingly, FIR No.139/2008 was
registered at Police Station, Nowabad, Jammu under Section 304-A RPC
against the concerned officials of Power Development Department. Writ
petitioners filed OWP No.975/2008 seeking compensation from the writ
respondents-appellants herein on account of negligence on the part of writ
respondents.
3. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition vide judgment
dated 17.03.2021 held that the writ petitioners are entitled to rupees ten lacs.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants-writ respondents have filed the instant
appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival
contentions and also perused the appeal file. Record of writ petition was also
called from the Registry.
5. The stand of appellants-writ respondents is that the writ petitioners filed
OWP No.975/2008 on 06.12.2008 seeking compensation and, if any
consideration was required under the policy, the same was required to be dealt
with in terms of Government Order No.328-PDD of 2011 dated 24.11.2011,
whereby an ex-gratia relief of rupees three lacs had been allowed in case of
death of a civilian due to electrocution. However, the learned Single Judge
allowed rupees ten lacs as compensation in favour of writ petitioners while
relying upon Government Order No.454-F of 2019 dated 24.10.2019, whereby
an ex-gratia relief of rupees ten lacs has been allowed in case of death of a
civilian due to electrocution. The further stand of appellants-writ respondents
is that since the order dated 24.10.2019 (supra) does not have retrospective
effect and the incident-in-question was of September, 2008; as such the learned
3 LPA 88/2021
Single Judge was wrong in allowing rupees ten lacs as compensation in favour
of writ petitioner.
6. Admittedly, deceased Vijay Kumar Gupta is stated to be died on
01.09.2008 due to electrocution and the writ respondents in their objections
have not disputed the same. The writ respondents in their objections to the writ
petition have specifically admitted that deceased Vijay Kumar Gupta came into
contact with the snapped conductor which was lying there on the pathway and
the panel had failed to trip and that the lapse had also been verified by the
Director, TTI & C; meaning thereby there was gross negligence on the part of
officials/officers of Power Development Department which took away a
precious human life, who may not be anything for the writ respondents or
anyone else, but, certainly, he was a whole world for his family. Further, when
the writ petition came to be decided by the learned Single Judge, Government
Order No.454-F of 2019 dated 24.10.2019 had already been issued. Therefore,
Government Order No.328-PDD of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 cannot be read in
isolation, when order dated 24.10.2019 had already been issued.
7. Further, when the writ respondents failed to consider the claim of writ
petitioners for grant of compensation on account of death of Vijay Kumar
Gupta due to electrocution due to the negligence of officials/officers of Power
Development Department, the writ petitioners had no option but to approach
this Court. The writ petition came to be filed in the year 2008 and during the
pendency of the petition the Government has issued Order No.454-F of 2019
dated 24.10.2019 enhancing the compensation in such cases from rupees three
lacs to rupees ten lacs. The writ petitioners have been hankering for getting the
compensation for the last more than fourteen years and, in these circumstances,
4 LPA 88/2021
the writ petitioners are entitled to the higher amount in terms of order dated
24.10.2019.
8. Further, the writ respondents perhaps have forgotten that the deceased at
the time of his death was only 48 years old and was an income tax payee. Also,
order dated 24.10.2019 is a beneficial order issued by the Government in larger
public interest with an objective to provide dignified/sufficient monetary
support to the families of such victims so as to save them from living a
destitute life. Also, from the year 2008 to the year 2023 the inflation has been
raised to many folds. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in allowing
interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of this petition.
9. Viewed thus, while upholding the judgment of learned Single Judge, we
do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed
along with connected CM.
Jammu (Puneet Gupta) (Tashi Rabstan)
04.05.2023 Judge Judge
(Anil Sanhotra)
Whether the order is reportable ? Yes/No
Whether the order is speaking ? Yes/No
