Punjab and Haryana High Court: In the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner (father of deceased) for challenging impugned order dated 06-01-2023 passed by Chief Engineer/Operation of DHBVNL (respondent 3), rejecting the claim of compensation demanded by the petitioner on account of death of their son by a high-voltage 11000 KV electricity line passing close to the roof, Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., awarded an interim compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner and advised him to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking just and appropriate compensation as per law.
The Court stated “Without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the present case or recording any definite finding as to which party was at lapse or as to whether it was a case of contributory negligence, lest it may prejudice the case of the respective parties, the present case is being disposed of at this stage as it raises disputed questions of facts which cannot be ascertained in writ jurisdiction.”
Background:
In the present case, on 30-01-2020 the petitioner son aged 03 years was playing on the terrace all of a sudden, the heavy electricity line of 11000KV passing adjoining the roof of the petitioner struck the child leading to an immediate death. The matter was reported to District Administration immediately and a post-mortem was conducted on 31-01-2020.
On 01-02-2020 a First Information Report (‘FIR’) was also registered under Section 304/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Whereas on 06-02-2020 the petitioner submitted a representation to the Engineer-City, OP-Division, DHBVN, Mehrauli Road, Gurugram for grant of compensation.
The petitioner 1 was called by the respondent-authorities for personal hearing with supporting documents. However, vide order dated 06-01-2023, the claim was declined by the respondent-authorities on the ground that the said incident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioners as the petitioners had done illegal construction on the house which extended his house almost beneath the 11kv line.
Analysis:
The Court was of the view that the writ Court may award compensation to any person aggrieved and against the wrongdoer of breach of its public duty, in addition to the independent right of the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in a civil action based on tort, by way of a suit instituted before a Court of competent jurisdiction. The quantum of the compensation would depend upon the facts of each case as there was no straight jacket formula present for damages like this.
The Court referred to Purshotam Parkash v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 3285, wherein it was held, ‘the principles laid down in claim cases under the Motor Vehicles Act were not to be strictly applied to compute quantum of compensation in electrocution cases, however, the same may be a guiding factor for awarding compensation’
The Court while discussing about the disputed question whether the injury in question was sustained to the default of the respondent-distribution licensee, was of the view that even in an eventuality of contributory negligence, the petitioner would nonetheless be entitled to some compensation. Although a construction was allegedly being raised in violation of law, however, the respondent failed to take appropriate steps to stop construction raised in violation of law.
The Court while disposing the present petition said that the present petition raised a disputed questions of facts which cannot be ascertained in writ jurisdiction. Later, the Court awarded an interim compensation amount Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner to be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondent-Department should however be entitled to seek a set-off the amount ordered above but there should be no recovery in case compensation assessed was less than the interim compensation ordered above.
The Court then advised the petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking just and appropriate compensation as per law. The Court of competent jurisdiction may thereupon determine the element of compensation on the basis of evidence led by the respective parties and be guided by such principles including the guideline/parameters prescribed under the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 as it may deem fit and proper.
[Deepak Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 5463, decided on 09-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: J.S. Sohal, Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocates
For Respondents: Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana; R.D. Bawa, Randhir Bawa, and Samuel Gill, Advocates.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
