Sagar Singh vs State Of J&K Through Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2010 j&K

                                                                        Sr. No.



        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         ATJAMMU



                                                      OWP No. 434/2012

                                                 Reserved on: 14.09.2023
                                               Pronounced on:18.09.2023


Sagar Singh, aged 14 years, S/O Suram Singh,
Through Suram Singh S/O Barita Singh,                     .....Petitioner(s)
R/O Village Pagyari, Tehsil Akhnoor, District
Jammu.

                              Through :- Mr. M. L. Gupta, Advocate

       v/s

1. State of J&K through Chief Secretary,
   Power Development Department,                         .....Respondent(s)
   J&K Govt., Jammu.
2. Chief Engineer, Power Development Deptt.,
   Jammu.

                              Through :- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

                                JUDGMENT

18.09.2023

1. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner through his father under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the

Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, seeks indulgence of this Court for

issuing appropriate writ thereby directing the respondents to compensate

the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs on account of permanently

handicapped/disability suffered by him due to the negligence of the

respondents.

2. It is being asserted that on 12th of October, 2011, the petitioner after

attending the school has gone to the fields with family cattles where an

unattended electric transformer was installed by the respondents under the

BPL scheme launched through National Hydroelectric Project Corporation;

that the said transformer was installed about 2/3 years back but remained

unattended and the petitioner while being with the domestic animals came

near the transformer and all of a sudden was by struck an electric shock,

thereby resulting into the injuries; that he was immediately rushed to the

nearby Primary Health Centre and thereafter was referred to Government

Medical College Hospital, Jammu for medical treatment as the petitioner

had suffered electric burns to the extent of 15%; that the petitioner was

admitted in surgical ward in GMC Bakshi Nagar, Jammu vide MLC No.

5185 and was discharged on 19th December, 2011 and during the treatment,

the left arm of the petitioner was amputated above elbow and the

debridement of 1/3rd of left thigh was done; that the father of the petitioner

spent more than Rs. 3.00 lakhs to save the life of the petitioner; that the

petitioner was a student of 7th class in a private academy when the accident

took place and the future of the petitioner was very bright as he was

interested to join belt forces, but his dream of joining the belt forces has

ended in a smoke on account of the negligent act of the respondents; that

the State being a welfare State is having its liability to ensure the safety of

its subjects and the right to life and liberty has been granted by the

Constitution 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

their part but in the present case, the respondents were negligent in not

maintaining and keeping the transformer unattended, put the life of the

inhabitants into danger and as such, the petitioner who has become

permanently disabled on account of the negligent act of the respondents is

entitled to compensation, assessed to the tune of Rs.20.00 lacs.

3. Pursuant to notice, respondents have 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 as 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 were

not negligent at all, as the petitioner suffered injuries because of his own

negligence; that the respondents conducted departmental inquiry after

receiving the information about the incident, the inquiry team headed by

Assistant Engineer of PDD, had reported that the petitioner received

electric shock along with other children, who were playing around the

Transformer erected by NHPC under Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vikas Yojna

and the petitioner climbed the transformer structure and at that time, the HT

Line Feeding Station was charged for testing purpose, as a result of which

the petitioner suffered electric shock; that the poles of the transformer

structure were encircled with barbed wire for safety purpose, however, the

petitioner who was himself negligent and contributed to the incident

knowingly well that the transformer was tested and all precautions were

taken by the department, still the petitioner climbed over the transformer

and suffered electric shock, therefore, there was no negligence on the part

of respondents, as such, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed

out rightly.

4. Heard and considered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been

rendered permanently disabled, thereby his future prospects on account of

the negligent act of the respondents has been doomed, as they failed to

protect the life of the petitioner, being engaged in hazardous and dangerous

activities as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the respondents

are liable to pay compensation, being assessed to the tune of Rs. 20.00 lacs,

to the petitioner. He has further argued that the father of the petitioner has

spent more than Rs.3.00 lacs to save the life of the petitioner but the

petitioner became totally handicapped and is unable to perform the day to

day duties. He has further argued that the petitioner was in 7th standard

when the accident took place and the future of the petitioner was very

bright as he was interested to join belt force and finally prayed that the

present petition be allowed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel

for the petitioner has produced a copy of the judgment passed by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled "Ajay Kumar vs State of J&K

& Ors", wherein a reference has been made to the judgment of 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) decided on 17.12.2014, 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, the Hon'ble Apex Court maintained order of the

Single Bench of the High Court, whereby the petitioner was held entitled to

compensation of Rs.60.00 lacs.

6. On the other hand, learned AAG, ex adverso, has argued that the

respondents were not negligent at all, as the petitioner suffered injuries

because of his own negligence. He has further argued that as per the

reported submitted by the Inquiry Team constituted by the Power

Development Department with regard to the subject matter that the electric

shock received by the petitioner along with other children who were

playing around and climbed on the transformer structure, erected by the

NHPC under Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vikas Yojna, not taken over by the

Power Development Department, and at time when the petitioner climbed

on the transformer structure, the HT Line Feeding Station was charged for

testing purpose. The HNPC earlier arrayed as respondent No.3 was deleted

from the array of respondents on 25.07.2023. He has further argued that the

poles of the transformer were encircled with barbed wire for safety

purpose, however, the petitioner, who was knowingly well that the

transformer was tested and all precautions were taken by the department,

still he climbed over the transformer and suffered electric shock, therefore,

there was no negligence on the part of the respondents and finally prayed

that the present petition be dismissed.

7. Petitioner, a student of 7th standard was of the age of 13/14 years had met

with an accident of electrocution, in his own village while grazing his

cattles, on 12.10.2012, when he got electric shocks due to an unattended

transformer. Petitioner received deep burn injuries, as a result of

electrocution and remained hospitalized in GMC Hospital Jammu. During

his treatment, the petitioner's left arm was amputated above elbow and

detrimental of 1/3rd of left thigh. It is an admitted case, that petitioner

received electric shocks, in coming in contact with unattended transformer

having electric current. As per medical report, issued by District Medical

Board of Doctors, it has been certified that petitioner's left arm was

amputated and left thigh also suffered debridement. The contention and

stand of the opposite side that the petitioner was himself negligent cannot

be simply accepted, for the reason that a person of such a young age,

cannot be expected to have contributed in the unfortunate electric

shock/electrocution, at such a tender age of 13/14 years. Registration of

FIR No. 235/2011 at Police Station Akhnoor is a sufficient proof to prove

negligence on the part of respondents. The petitioner for the aforestated

reasons is entitled to compensation.

8. 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.

In this regard, the age of the petitioner, the expected earning loss and the

extent of the injury suffered by the petitioner are the prime considerations

while assessing the compensation. The petitioner was of about 14 years of

age at the time of incident and was a student of 7th class. The Court infuse

some guess work while assessing the future earning of the petitioner as the

petitioner had not suffered left arm amputated above elbow and the

debridement of 1/3rd of left thigh was done.

9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in OWP No. 306/2012, titled Ajay

Kumar vs State of J&K & Ors, in a case of 90% disability due to

electrocution to a child aged 13 years and a student, accepted notional

income of the disabled petitioner as Rs.6000/- and awarded total

compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The case on hand, has also almost

identical facts.

10. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner on 12.08.2011 immediately

after suffering electric shock due to unattended transformer was rushed to

the nearby Primary Health Centre, and thereafter was referred to GMC

Hospital, Jammu where he received treatment and remained admitted from

12.12.10.2011 to 19.12.2011.The injury suffered by the petitioner due to

electric burn has unfortunately resulted into amputation to his left arm

above elbow and the debridement of 1/3rd of left thigh was done. The

disability certificate issued by the board of doctors of SDH Akhnoor vide

order dated 25.04.2013 records 100% permanent disability of the petitioner

due to the injuries suffered by him.

11. Having regard to the age of petitioner as 14 and the notional income of

Rs.6,000/- per month is to be taken, the multiplier of 18 can be taken for

assessing the compensation on account of loss of earning which comes to

[6000x12x18) Rs.12,96,000/-. The court further awards Rs. 7.00 lacs as

lump sum on account of the pain and suffering and the expenses on medical

treatment. The total amount to which the petitioner is held entitled to comes

to Rs.19,96,000/- rounded off to Rs. 20,00,000/-. The petitioner is also held

entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from the respondents on the

aforesaid amount of Rs.20,00,000 (Twenty Lac Rupees), from the date of

filing of the writ petition till its realization. This court expects that the

respondents, keeping in view the disability suffered by the petitioner way

back in the year 2011, shall not cause any delay in making the payment to

the petitioner.

12. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made hereinabove, the

present petition is, thus, allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

(M A Chowdhary) Judge

JAMMU 18.09.2023 Vijay

Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes