Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ut Of J&K And Others vs Vaishno Devi And Others on 23 May, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1254-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 28.04.2025
Pronounced on 23.05.2025
CJ Court
Case: LPA No. 78/2025
[WP(C) No. 2362/2019]
CM No. 2413/2025
CM No. 2414/2025
UT of J&K and others ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
v/s
Vaishno Devi and others .... Respondent(s)
Through: None
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
Per Oswal-J
1. This is an application for condoning the delay of 66 days in filing the
accompanying appeal.
2. For the reasons set out in the application, which is duly supported by
an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal
is condoned.
3. Application is disposed of.
1. Impugned in this intra court appeal is the judgment dated 10.12.2024,
passed by the learned writ court, whereby the appellants have been directed
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1254-DB
to pay the amount of Rs. 11,63,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum
to the respondents from the date of filing of the writ petition till date of its
actual payment.
2. The judgment passed by the learned writ court has been impugned
by the appellants on the ground that disputed questions of facts were raised
by the respondents before the learned writ court, which in fact were required
to be adjudicated by the civil court and without there being any evidence on
record, the learned Single Judge has granted the compensation of
Rs. 11,63,000/- in favour of the respondents. It is also contended that the
Government has come out with a Government order No. 328-PDD of 2011
dated 24.11.2011, which provides for grant of ex gratia to the departmental
and non-departmental persons, killed/grievously injured due to electrocution
and in terms of the said Government order, the compensation could have
been granted to the respondents only to the extent of Rs. 3.00 lacs.
3. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned A.A.G, has submitted that the writ
petition was not maintainable in view of the disputed facts raised by the
respondents and the compensation beyond the amount prescribed under
Government order No. 328-PDD of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 could not have
been awarded in favour of the respondents. He has further argued that there
was no evidence before the learned writ court to determine the compensation
under different heads, and the matter was required to be adjudicated by the
civil court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and considered the matter.
5. A perusal of the record reveals that one Shail Singh, husband of the
respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 & 3, who was working as
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1254-DB
a private electrician, was engaged by the officials of the appellants for
repairing 11 KV electric line at Kathar Tehsil Dansal. While affecting
repairs on 29.08.2017, Shail Singh suffered serious injuries, due to which
even one of his arms was amputated but even after that, he could not survive.
Ultimately, he came to demise on 24.09.2017 at PGI, Chandigarh. FIR
bearing No. 101/2017 under Section 304-A RPC was also registered with
Police Station, Jhajjar Kotli in respect of the incident that took place on
29.08.2017. By pleading that the deceased was the sole bread earner of his
family and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, besides being an
agriculturist, the respondents filed a writ petition for grant of compensation
for an amount of Rs. 30.00 lacs., as Shail Singh i.e. predecessor-in-interest
of the respondents died due to negligence of the appellants because the
appellants did not shut down the power supply, which resulted into
electrocution of the deceased.
6. The appellants objected to the writ petition by stating that disputed
questions of facts have been raised, which are required to be adjudicated by
a Civil Court, though it was admitted in the response filed by the appellants
before the writ court that the case of the respondents is in active
consideration of the appellant-department, as after getting the negligence
verified, the Chief Electric Inspector, J&K PDD has already recommended
the case of the respondents to the appellant No. 1. It was also stated that as
per order No. 328-PDD of 2011 dated 24.11.2011, negligence is required to
be certified by an authority for processing the claim for grant of
compensation.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1254-DB
7. A perusal of the report dated 11.08.2021, placed on record by the
appellants before the learned writ court, reveals that the incident of
electrocution took place because of a contact between the main line and the
isolated portion of the tap line, at the isolation point due to improper
clearance between the both, which charged the isolated portion, where the
deceased was executing the repair work. With these observations,
recommendations were made for ex gratia relief in favour of the victim
family under rules.
8. In fact, there is admission on the part of the appellants that it was
because of the fault of the appellants that the incident took place, thus it
cannot be said that there are/were disputed questions of facts. The contention
of the appellants is that as per the Government policy, compensation beyond
the amount of ex gratia as specified in the policy cannot be granted. In "The
State of J&K & Ors.vs.Abrar Ahmad Tantray", 2025 Legal Eagle
(J&K) 21, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that 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. Therefore, there is no force in this contention of the appellants and
as such, the same is, accordingly, rejected.
9. The learned writ court has considered the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs. 15,000/- and at the time of his death, the deceased was 52
years of age. The learned writ court after applying the principles, as are
applicable for grant of compensation in Motor Accidents Claim cases, has
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1254-DB
held the respondents entitled to Rs. 11,63,000/- as compensation on account
of demise of Sh. Shail Singh.
10. We have examined the judgment passed by the learned writ court and
we do not find that the learned writ court has granted exorbitant
compensation warranting indulgence at our end. This appeal is found to be
devoid of any merit, the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
23.05.2025
Karam Chand/Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
