Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Pronounced On :09.05.2025 vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir Th on 9 May, 2025

                                                                        2025:JKLHC-SGR:115




     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                    AT SRINAGAR

OWP No.424/2014

                                                    Pronounced on :09.05.2025


Mst. Haneefa                                     .......Petitioner/Appellant(s)
W/o Late Gulzar Ahmad Dar
R/o Bogund, Kulgam, Kashmir

                        Through:- Mr. G. N. Sofi, Advocate

                  V/s

1. State of Jammu and Kashmir Th.                         .....Respondent(s)
Commissioner/secretary to Govt Power
Development
Department, Civil Sectt Srinagar/Jammu

2. Development Commissioner Power J&K
Srinagar/Jammu

3. Chief Engineer Electric Maintenance and RE
Wing
Kashmir/Jammu

4.Superintending Engineer Electric Maintenance
and RE Circle, Bijbehara

5.Executive Engineer Electric Division, Kulgam

6. Assistant Executive Engineer Electric Sub
Division, Kulgam


                        Through:- Ms. Shaila Shameem, Assisting
                        Counsel to
                        Mr. All;a Ud Din Ganai, AAG

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA,
JUDGE
                                JUDGMENT

1. Through the medium of the instant writ petition, the petitioner

seeks a direction upon the respondents to either grant compensation to

the tune of ₹20.00 lakhs to the family of the deceased, Gulzar Ahmad

2025:JKLHC-SGR:115

Dar (the husband of the petitioner), or to provide compassionate

appointment to one of the family members in the respondents'

department, on account of the death of the said Gulzar Ahmad Dar due

to electrocution.

2. The petitioner's husband, namely Gulzar Ahmad Dar, died on

04.101999 due to an electric short circuit. Consequently, FIR No.

207/1999 was registered at Police Station Kulgam for the commission of

offences under Sections 287, 337, and 304 of the Ranbir Penal Code

(RPC). The father and the wife of the deceased i.e., the petitioner

approached the respondents, seeking compensation or compassionate

appointment for a family member of the deceased. The Chief Electrical

Inspector, J&K Government, through a communication dated

11.07.2001, informed Respondent No. 1 that the electrocution of Gulzar

Ahmad Dar occurred due to a fault in the protection system.

3. It is submitted that respondent No. 1, through his Under Secretary,

vide letter dated 20.08.2002, directed respondent No. 2 to provide a brief

background note of the case. In response, the Administrative Office,

Srinagar informed the Principal Secretary to the Government, Power

Development Department, Srinagar, that no compensation has been paid

to the family of the deceased, Late Gulzar Ahmad Dar. It was further

requested that the engagement of his wife on a daily wage basis be

kindly considered.

2025:JKLHC-SGR:115

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite repeated

approaches to the respondents for the appointment of the petitioner, no

action has been taken in her favour. It is contended that the petitioner's

husband is survived by seven legal heirs, and the Government has

sanctioned only ₹1 lakh as compensation. Furthermore, it is submitted

that the respondents, in their internal communications, have

acknowledged that the death of the petitioner's husband occurred due to

the negligence of the concerned Department, as such, the respondents are

under a legal and moral obligation either to pay a compensation amount

of ₹20 lakhs to the petitioner or to provide employment to one of the

deceased's family members. It is further contended that the respondents

have given fair compensation or job appointments to other people in

similar situations, but unfairly treated the petitioner by denying them the

same benefits.

5. Despite availing several opportunities by this Court, counter

affidavit has not been filed by the respondents. This Court vide order

dated 25.11.2021 directed the respondents to release an amount of Rs.

3.00 lac to the petitioner, however, the same till date has not been

released by them.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on

record.

7. The maintenance of electric supply line in the area is that of the

State & its functionaries, they are under an obligation to maintain their

electric lines along with all its equipment. A strict and absolute duty is

2025:JKLHC-SGR:115

cast upon them to maintain the same. The transmission and distribution

of the energy should be in a manner, so that the energy transmitted by

them does not cause injury or loss to anyone who unknowingly gets

trapped in it. Liability under law of torts is to compensate for the injury

suffered by any person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on

their part. An authority undertaking activity involving hazardous or risky

exposure to human life is liable under law to compensate for the injuries

suffered by any person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on

the part of those responsible for supply of electricity energy. It is very

foreseeable risk in the nature of such an activity due to which such a

liability is casted upon such a person or authority who undertakes such

activity. It is known as "Strict Liability or 'Absolute liability, therefore,

the respondents are duty bound to compensate the petitioner for the death

of her husband.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with this doctrine in

M.C. Mehta & anr. vs. Union of India & ors., 1987 (1) SCC 395has

held as under: -

"Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on any one on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India reported as (1987) 1 SCC 395)."

9. The writ petition for granting compensation for the death of an

individual or family member is no longer re integra as per the settled

legal position. Reliance is place on the judgment of this Court in Mustaq

2025:JKLHC-SGR:115

Ahmed & ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir &ors., reported in AIR

2009 JK 29 and Joginder Singh v. State of J&K & ors, reported in

AIR 2011 (1) JKJ 722. This court, while dealing with the issue, it was

held in Mustaq Ahmed's case, supra as under:-

"13. The question that, therefore, falls for consideration is as to whether even in such type of cases, where death or injury is caused because of leakage of electric energy by the State engaged in supply of electric energy, which, no doubt, poses a potential threat to the safety of living beings, if not would be debarred from invoking extraordinary civil writ jurisdiction of the Court when the electrocution had taken place because of no fault of the victim".

10. This Court in Mustaq Ahmed's case has relied on the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SDO Grid Corporation's case, AIR

2005 SC 3971, which is reproduced as under;

"26. After referring to all the judgments, in our consideration view, the ratio of the judgment handed down by the Apex Court in SDO Grid Corporation's case, AIR 2005 SC 3971 (supra) relied upon by Mr. Thakur and also made the basis for rejection of all the three writ petitions filed by the appellants, does not whittle down the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board's case, AIR 2002 SC 551 as in SDO Grid Corporation's case, AIR 2005 SC 3971 (supra), the Apex Court considered the earlier decision rendered in M. P. Electricity Board's case and without affecting the principle of "strict liability"

distinguished the said judgment on the ground that the question of negligence was determined by Civil Court. Therefore, it can be reasonably understood that M.P.Electricity Board's case has been distinguished on its own facts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not taken any contrary view from the one already taken with regard tot he doctrine of "strict liability" as discussed in extenso in the judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta's case, AIR 1987 SC 1086(supra)."

11. The admitted position is that the deceased-Gulzar Ahmad Dar died

duet to electrocution at his residential house. The Police department

registered an FIR No. 207/1999 at Police Station Kulgam under Sections

2025:JKLHC-SGR:115

287,337,304 RPC against the functionaries and the concerned officials of

the Power Development Department.

12. Admittedly, the conductor on 11 KV line crossing over LT

distribution line, got snapped in the Village Bogund, Kulgam, Kashmir

on 04.10.1999. This falling of LT Line, thereby charging UT Line of

11KV which caused burning the distressing sound. This caused panic

among the villagers. Petitioner's husband Gulzar Ahmad Dar tried to

switch off his main services switch, but got electrocuted instantly. In

such circumstances, the plea of the respondents that they are not liable to

compensate the petitioner for the death of husband of the petitioner is

without any substance.

13. The date of birth of the petitioner's husband, late Gulzar Ahmad

Dar, as recorded in the certificate issued by the Headmaster of Boys

Middle School, Bogund, Zone Kulgam, is 01.01.1963. At the time of the

accident, he was 36 years old. As per the communication dated

24.11.2005 from the Assistant Commissioner (G), Kulgam, he is

survived by seven legal heirs, namely: his mother, his wife (the

petitioner), and five minor children.

14. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir vide Order No. 454-F of

2019 dated 24.10.2019 has framed a policy for grant of ex-gratia relief in

favour of civilians killed or injured, resulting in their partial or total

disability in an accident attributable to the Power Development

Department. As per the said policy in case of death, the amount of

compensation of ex-gratia relief has been fixed as ₹ 10.00 lacs, in case

2025:JKLHC-SGR:115

of total disability the amount of compensation has been fixed as ₹ 7.50

lacs and in case of partial disability the amount of compensation payable

has been fixed as ₹ 2.00 lacs. The said order reads as under:-

"Sanction is hereby accorded to the following amendments in the Jammu and Kashmir Book of Financial Powers:-In the Book of Financial Powers in Chapter 5.9 against S.No.~23-A(~), the column 'Extent' shall be recast as under:

S.No   Nature of Power                          To whom              Extent
                                                delegated
       1)To grant Ex-gratia Relief in DCP                   Full powers within the
       favour of the employees of the                       Budget Provisions with the
       POD, other persons or their heir                     following scales:
       and to the owners of Domestic
       Animals, who are electrocuted                        A. Human Beings:
       and     die,    or   are   rendered                   I. In case of Death=Rs 10.00
       fully/partially disabled due to the                  lacs.
       negligence of the POD, subject to
       the conditions that:                                 II.Total Disability=Rs 7.50
                                                            lacs.
       I) All the employees of the POD,
       whether      regular   ,DRW/Casual                   III.Partial Disability=Rs
       labour, Work Charged, Contingent                     2.00 lacs
       paid etc., engaged in the generation,
       transmission or supply of electrical                 In case of death of any
       energy in the Department, who are                    employee, the Ex-gratia
       killed, incapacitated, wholly or                     relief shall be paid to the
       partially, during the course of                      legal heirs of the deceased.
       discharging                                          The payment shall be
       their bonafide and legitimate duties;                subject to the condition that
       ii) Civilians, killed or injured,                    the relief, granted by the
       resulting in their partial or total                  Government under the
       disability, subject to the explicit                  Workman's Compensation
       condition that the accident is                       Act, shall be adjusted while
       not attributable to them, but to . the               making payment of the
       lapses, attributable to the POD, as                  Exgratia
       verified by the Director, TTl & C;                   relief.

       III) Domestic animals killed by                      B. Domestic Animals i.
       electrocution, caused due to lapses,                 Cow ,bull, horse=Rs
       attributable to the Department and                   20,000 ii. Sheep/Goat=Rs
       verified by the Director,                            5,000.

15. The petitioner has been left without any means and succour due to

the death of her husband, who was the only earning member. She has

2025:JKLHC-SGR:115

also been deprived of his love, affection and company. The State being a

welfare State and framed policy of ex-gratia relief to the heirs of those,

whose deaths occur due to electrocution, therefore, grant of

compensation to the petitioner in terms of the policy would be just and

proper to meet the ends of justice. The petitioner is, accordingly, held

entitled to compensation of ₹10 Lakh in terms of the aforesaid orders as

minimum compensation for the death of her husband.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and the respondents

are directed to pay the petitioner a sum of ₹ 10 lakh as compensation

alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of

this petition.