Allowed

Savitri Devi etc. v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2012CWP/12623/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner's legal representatives challenged a Rs.50,000 compensation award from an electrocution death. The court applied res ipsa loquitur to establish respondent negligence, found the prior award too meagre, and enhanced compensation to Rs.5,50,000 over and above the earlier amount.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay an additional compensation of Rs.5,50,000 to the petitioners over and above the Rs.50,000 already awarded.

Savitri Devi etc. Vs Uttar Har… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P.No.12623 of 2004

¶3

Date of decision : 28.5.2012

¶4

Smt. Savitri Devi and others

¶5

....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and anr.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr.Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

None for the respondents.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The petitioner No.1 is an unfortunate widow of one Shri Om Parkash who lost his life in an electrocution incident while the other petitioners are the legal representatives of said Om Parkash. This petition was filed with a prayer that the respondents be directed to compensate the petitioners on account of the negligence of the respondents resulting in the electrocution of deceased Om Parkash on 14.7.2000. It has been averred in the petition that on the unfortunate day at about 3.00 p.m. after finishing his work Om Parkash was coming back to his village on his bicycle and when he reached the bridge of Khalasi (drain) near village Moonak, an 11 KV current cable all of a sudden snapped which was having live current and the

¶14

C.W.P.No.12623 of 2004 -2-

¶15

same fell on him resulting in his instant death.

¶16

The petitioners lodged a claim for compensation with the respondents which eventually led to the filing of CWP No.19396 of 2001 which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to finally determine the claim of the petitioners based on the legal notice earlier served by the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶17

Pursuant to this the petitioners were granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- in terms of the provisions of the Fatal Accident Act, 1985.

¶18

The petitioners dissatisfied with the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- have filed the instant petition seeking enhanced compensation. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. In the reply filed by them they have stated that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was given purely on account of the direction of this Court to decide the legal notice, otherwise they would not obliged to give this amount considering the fact that it was merely an accident.

¶19

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others 2012(3) Recent Apex Judgments 92 (SC) has held that the Constitutional Court can evolve and invoke its own methods in cases of tortious claim against the State considering that remedy out of private law action in tort is generally time consuming and expensive. It upheld the right of the Constitutional Court to award monetary compensation against the State and its officials for failure to

¶20

C.W.P.No.12623 of 2004 -3-

¶21

safeguard fundamental rights of citizens.

¶22

I have considered the issues raised before this Court. The respondents have refuted their liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners altogether and have rather stated that although it was a mere accident and there was no negligence on the part of the respondents then also pursuant to the orders passed by this Court the petitioners' case was taken up by the respondents and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned.

¶23

To the mind of this Court the approach of the respondents to the issue of death of Om Parkash, the husband of petitioner No.1, is callous to say the least. It is very easy for the respondents to wish away the death due to an accident but implicit in the facts of the case is the fact that the wire carrying electricity current of 11 KV snapped which per se would indicate that it was not connected properly and was obviously loose.

¶24

Applying the principle of res ipsa locutor it is evident that an element of negligence cannot be avoided as attributable to the respondents. Consequently applying the aforesaid principle indicating the negligence of the respondents, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000/- which has been awarded is too meagre. The deceased is said to be working in a refinery and therefore would have been earning at least the minimum wages if not more considering the fact of his employment. There is no material to suggest that he was a skilled worker and therefore as an inference of his earnings the minimum wage is a tempting proposition to accept. At the same time,

¶25

C.W.P.No.12623 of 2004 -4-

¶26

there is no material on record which would indicate the minimum wage structure existing in the year 2000 when the death took place. The Court is thus left with no other option but to resort to and adopt the element of guess work to ascertain the compensation to the petitioners. Considering the totality of circumstances, I deem it appropriate to determine the compensation of the petitioners at Rs.5,50,000/- which shall be over and above the amount already granted.

¶27

The petition stands disposed of and the respondents are directed to make the aforesaid compensation to the petitioners.

¶28

28.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶29

dss

Savitri Devi etc. v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Devi etc. v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tania @ Arshdeep Kaur Vs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula & Ors.

Navneet Kumar Vs Punjab State Power Corpn.Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Mann Cooperative Labour & Construction Soc. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Monica and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Surender Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kehar Singh Rana Vs State of Haryana and Ros.