Partly allowed

Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2012CWP/15234/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought enhancement of compensation awarded for the death of the petitioner's wife due to electrocution. The Court held that while the respondent had initially awarded Rs. 85,086, the proper assessment based on standard housewife income and MV Act principles mandated a higher amount. The Court awarded Rs. 3.6 lakhs and directed respondents to pay the balance.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,60,000/-; Respondents directed to pay the balance amount within two months.

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 15234 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 15234 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision: 1.5.2012

Ishwar Singh

....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. S.S. Pattar, Senior DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. None for the respondents No.2 to 4.

¶14

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶15

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enhance the compensation to Rs.6 lacs on account of death of Smt. Kunti alias Ponti, wife of the petitioner, aged 40 years, who was doing the work of agricultural labourer on daily wages basis due to electrocution and for the burn injuries suffered due to the electric current by Seema, daughter of the petitioner while trying to save her mother Smt. Kunti.

¶16

Put shortly, the facts for adjudication of the present petition are that on 28.6.2008, Smt. Kunti (wife of the petitioner) along with the daughter as well as some other residents of the village had gone to the

¶17

CWP No. 15234 of 2010

¶18

-2-

¶19

fields of one Dhan Singh for plantation of paddy. When they went to the adjoining fields to fetch the paddy which was to be sown, suddenly a live electricity wire of 100 KV metre fell upon the wife of the petitioner and when the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Seema tried to save her mother, she also got electric current. Both of them were rushed to the General Hospital, Panipat. However, on the way, Smt. Kunti died whereas the daughter of the petitioner was admitted in the hospital in a serious condition. DDR No. 14 dated 28.6.2008 was also got recorded in this regard. It was pleaded that the death of the wife of the petitioner had occurred due to the negligence of the respondents and, therefore, the respondents were liable to pay the compensation. The matter was brought to the notice of the respondent-authorities and when no action was being taken, the petitioner sent a registered legal notice dated 6.10.2008. Having failed to get any response to the legal notice, the petitioner filed CWP No. 4346 of 2009 and this Court vide order dated 20.3.2009 disposed of the writ petition directing respondents No.2 to 4 to take cognizance of the legal notice and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of the order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed COCP No. 1554 of 2009. During the pendency of the contempt petition, respondent No.3 vide order dated 4.12.2009 ordered for payment of compensation amounting to Rs.85,086/-. It was also mentioned therein that the compensation amount can be considered for revision if the petitioner submits any authentic proof of deceased income. In view of the order dated 4.12.2009 passed by respondent No.3, the contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.12.2009 with liberty to the

¶20

CWP No. 15234 of 2010 -3-

¶21

petitioner to challenge the said order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 29.12.2009 to respondent No.3 for revision of quantum of compensation which brought no response. Even the reminder and the legal notice dated 10.5.2010 have failed to get any response from the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. None appears on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4. 4. The petitioner on an earlier occasion had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4346 of 2009 for seeking compensation wherein right to receive compensation was accepted by this Court when the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.3.2009 by directing the respondents to take cognizance of the legal notice dated 6.10.2008 served on behalf of the petitioner for quantifying the compensation. After the disposal of the said writ petition, the respondent-authorities determined the compensation at Rs.85,086/keeping in view that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.443/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2001 ACJ 1735 and of this Court in Santosh Devi and others v. Haryana Vidut Prasaran Nigam and others, 2001(3) PLR 75 and Prem Chand and another v. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, 2003(2) LJC 38 to contend that ordinarily Rs.3000/- per month should be taken as the income, where there is no exact measure of earnings of the deceased for assessing the quantum of compensation. No one has appeared on behalf of respondents No.2

¶23

CWP No. 15234 of 2010 -4-

¶24

to 4 to oppose the prayer made in the petition though in the written statement filed on their behalf, the quantum of compensation at Rs.85,086/- is sought to be justified.

¶25

The wife of the petitioner, Smt. Kunti, aged 40 years died due to electrocution. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to compensation on this count as they have made payment of ` 85,086/- to the petitioner. However, the question to be adjudicated in this writ petition would be whether in the facts and circumstances, the quantum assessed by the respondents is adequate.

¶26

In the present case, the deceased-wife was 40 years of age who had been helping her husband in his daily chores. Though she might not be earning any income from any employer, but her contribution to the husband cannot be negated. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arun Kumar Aggarwal and another v. National Insurance Company Limited (2010) 9 SCC 218 delving into the issue relating to the contribution made by a housewife observed in paras 26 and 27 as under:-

¶27

“26. In India, the courts have recognized that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day

¶28

CWP No. 15234 of 2010

¶29

-5-

¶30

and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including cook of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maid servant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children.

¶31

It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. The husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother. In that context, the term “services” is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation

¶32

CWP No. 15234 of 2010 -6-

¶33

like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier.”

¶34

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) accepting the report of former Chief Justice of India, Shri Justice Y.V. Chandrachud had noticed as under:-

¶35

“But even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be 3000 per month and 36,000 per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age ground of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life.”

¶36

Since there is no conclusive evidence produced to establish the income of the deceased, keeping in view the dictum of the

¶37

Hon'ble Apex Court in Arun Kumar Aggarwal and Lata Wadhwa's cases (supra) the income of the deceased is taken to be 3,000/- p.m. i.e. 36,000/- per annum.

¶38

What should be the yardstick to assess compensation in the case of death by electrocution due to negligence of the Electricity Department? A Division Bench of this Court in Paramjit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others 2008(4) CCC 511 dealing with the compensation to be awarded in the case of death by electrocution observed that the compensation to be awarded in such cases should be on the basis of compensation payable in fatal accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the 1988 Act”) as underlying

¶39

CWP No. 15234 of 2010 -7-

¶40

principles for determination of quantum of compensation are the same. It was observed in para 19 as under:-

¶41

“19. Having held that this is a clear case of negligence, incompetent workmanship and supervision on the part of the Board and its officials, which has resulted in the untimely and sudden death of Sh. Lajja Ram, we proceed to assess the amount of compensation to which the petitioners would be entitled to in the present case. Since there is nothing in the Acts governing the transmission and supply of Electricity which regulates the grant or quantum of compensation in our considered view the well settled and accepted principles adopted by the Courts for determination of compensation to be awarded in fatal accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be adopted, as the underlying principles for determination of quantum of compensation are the same.”

¶42

Ordinarily for assessing compensation under the 1988 Act, 1/3^rd out of the monthly income is deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased. Thus, in the present case, after deducting 1/3^rd from 36,000/- per annum, the balance of 24,000/- per annum would be left. Under the Schedule to the 1988 Act, where the deceased is between 40 to 45 years, the suitable multiplier is 15. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, 15 would be an appropriate multiplier according to the schedule under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶43

CWP No. 15234 of 2010

¶44

-8-

¶45

Taking totality of facts and circumstances, the petitioner is awarded compensation of 3,60,000/-. Respondents No.2 to 4 shall pay the balance amount after deducting 85,086/-from the aforesaid compensation within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶46

However, adverting to the claim of compensation regarding burn injuries sustained by Seema daughter of the petitioner, a perusal of the petition shows that only half hearted effort has been made for claiming compensation. In para 13 of the petition, it has been simpliciter alleged that Seema had suffered burn injuries while trying to save her mother from electrocution without pleading the nature of burn injuries and the nature of disability, if any, suffered. Further, no supporting material to substantiate the claim has also been produced. In the absence of sufficient material and pleadings on the issue, it is held that in case the petitioner has any claim in that regard, it shall be open to him to seek his remedy before the appropriate forum including the civil court in accordance with law.

¶47

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶48

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶49

May 01, 2012 gbs

¶50

CWP No. 15234 of 2010

¶51

-9-

¶52

For determining compensation in such cases, there is no strait jacket formula on the basis of which it could be said that a particular amount would be the compensation. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring value of human life by mathematical precision. However, while determining compensation, it would be essential that it is kept in mind that compensation awarded should not be inadequate, unreasonable, deficient and at the same time it should also not be excessive or punitive against whom the claim is made. It should not result as a source of profit to the person in whose favour it has been awarded. In other words, the quantum of compensation is to be just and reasonable in the given facts and circumstances.

Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharminder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

M/S Anc Clothing & Ors. Vs M/S Ansh International & Anor.

M/S Devta Steel Rolling Mills Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh and Ors.

M/S Radha Sami Transport Co. Jind Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.

M/S Niranjan Rice Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commisisoner of Income TAX-1, Jalandhar

M/S Vijay K Jairath and Co. Vs Union of India and Anr.