1. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated
19.10.2023 passed by the learned Writ Court in OWP No. 1343/2017,
pay a sum of Rs. 28,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Ten Thousand
income to the respondent from the date of institution of the petition till
2. The appellants have assailed the judgment on the following grounds:-
(a) That in terms of Government Order No. 328-PDD of 2011
dated 24.11.2011, read with Government Order No. 454-F
of 2019 dated 24.10.2019, the respondent was only entitled
to grant of ex-gratia relief.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2073-DB
(b) That the appellants were never responsible for the incident,
rather the incident took place because of negligence of the
respondent only.
(c) That there was no evidence with regard to income of the
respondent and as such, learned Writ Court has granted the
exorbitant amount of compensation on mere assumptions
and presumptions.
3. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG has submitted that the incident did
not take place because of negligence of the appellants or their officials
but because of the respondent and further that the respondent was only
entitled to ex-gratia relief in terms of Government Order No. 328-PDD
of 2011 dated 24.11.2011, read with Government Order No. 454-F of
2019 dated 24.10.2019. He has further argued that the learned Writ
Court has granted exorbitant compensation on mere assumptions and
presumptions.
4. Per contra, Mr. Rajnish Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the
respondent has submitted that the Assistant Executive Engineer,
Electric Maintenance and Rural Electrification, Sub-Division
Sunderbani in his report has categorically mentioned that 11 kv feeder
was under shutdown and the respondent was isolating a section of the
line by opening the Jumpers. He opened two jumpers smoothly and
while opening third jumper, he got an electric shock and fell down and
further, it was revealed that there was sudden flow of charge in the
electric line. He has further argued that disability certificate issued by
the competent authority establishes that the respondent has suffered
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2073-DB
locomotor permanent disability of 90% and 60% disability on account
of physical impairment of bladder and further that the respondent has
paraplegia, as such, there is total loss of earning capacity of the
respondent. He has further relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this court to submit that the orders issued by the Government
for grant of ex-gratia relief cannot come in the way of the constitutional
courts to award compensation in favour of the victim of electrocution.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. This is an admitted case of the parties that the respondent was working
as a need-based worker with the appellants. The record depicts that on
08.11.2014, while working on an electric poll for disconnecting the
jumper for restoration of power, the respondent suffered an electric
shock, as a result of which, he fell down. The respondent was taken to
Sunderbani hospital for treatment and thereafter to GMC Hospital at
Jammu and finally to Amritsar where the respondent was operated upon
and his right arm was amputated. In order to substantiate the incident of
electrocution, the respondent has placed on record FIR No. 68/2016
registered with Police Station, Sunderbani. The respondent has further
placed on record the disability certificate dated 19.10.2022 which
demonstrates that he has suffered 90% Locomotor disability due to
transhumeral amputation of right arm and 60% on account of physical
impairment of bladder. The disability certificate further reveals that the
respondent has paraplegia with neurogenic bladder on ID catheter,
Grade II Bed sores. It is evident that the respondent is in pathetic
medical condition.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2073-DB
7. The appellants have not denied the report of Assistant Executive
Engineer, Electric Maintenance and Rural Electrification, Sub-Division,
Sunderbani and after examining the said report, we find the cause for
incident of electrocution was sudden flow of charge on the line which
caused injury to the respondent while he was opening the third jumper.
In the report, it was stated that there was shutdown at 12:28 hours
onwards and it is not forthcoming as to how there was sudden flow of
charge on the electric line, when there was shutdown. We have not even
an iota of doubt in our mind that the incident took place because of
negligence of the appellants and their officials only. Accordingly, we do
not find substance in the contention raised by the appellants that it was
the negligence of the respondent that he suffered an electric shock and
as such, this contention is rejected.
8. It is next contended that the respondent could not have been granted
more compensation other than the one provided in the form of ex-gratia
in terms of Government Order No. 328-PDD of 2011 dated 24.11.2011
read with Government Order No. 454-F of 2019 dated 24.10.2019. A
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already considered this issue in
case titled 'State of J&K Versus Abrar Ahmad Tantray & Anr.,
reported as JKJ ONLINE 89305 and has held as under:-
"11. The first contention of the appellants is that the learned
writ Court has not taken note of the order dated 24.10.2019,
which provides for grant of ex-gratia relief to the victims of
electrocution. This is true that the learned writ Court has not
taken note of the Government Order dated 24.10.2019, but
we are of the considered view that mere non-consideration of
the order dated 24.10.2019, would not have any effect on the
merits of the claim of the respondent. The expression '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
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2073-DB
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. Thus, this contention of the appellant
is accordingly rejected.
(emphasis added)
In view of the above, this contention of the appellant is also found to be
misconceived.
9. Lastly, it is contended that exorbitant compensation has been awarded
to the respondents. Perusal of the judgment impugned reveals that the
learned Writ Court has applied the multiplier of 17 while taking into
consideration the age of the respondent as 28 years, whereas, in fact at
the time of incident, the respondent was 25 years of age. In our opinion,
appropriate multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. Further, the
learned Writ Court has considered the respondent as skilled labourer
and has determined his income as Rs. 200/- per day in terms of the
wages fixed by the Government. The appellants have also not disputed
the wages of skilled labourers at the relevant point of time as mentioned
in Para '16' of the judgment impugned. The learned Writ Court has
further wrongly enhanced the future income by 25% which ought to
have been enhanced by 40% in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case titled, 'National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi and ors.' reported in 2017(16) SCC 680. The interest
component has also been awarded @ 5% per annum, which ought to
have been 6% per annum. Had the learned writ court rightly considered
the age and applied the multiplier accordingly and further enhanced the
enhancement of income in future by 40%, the respondent would have
been held entitled to higher compensation than the one granted by the
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2073-DB
learned writ court, as such, it cannot be said that exorbitant
compensation has been awarded to the respondent. As the respondent
has not chosen to assail the judgment, therefore, in absence of any
challenge thrown to the judgment impugned in this appeal, we are not
inclined to enhance the compensation as awarded by the learned Writ
Court.
10. For what has been said and discussed herein above, judgment dated
19.10.2023 passed by the learned Writ Court in OWP No. 1343/2017 is
upheld and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, however, leaving the
respondent free to avail an appropriate remedy as available under law.
The appellants are directed to comply the judgment of the learned writ
court forthwith.
(RAJESH SEKHRI) (RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Jammu
04.08.2025
Neha-II
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
