Maintenance of live electric lines is government’s duty: HC

Srinagar, Jul 3: Underscoring that maintenance of electric supply live lines is the duty of the government, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has upheld its single judge’s decision attributing the loss of a carpenter’s life due to electric current to the negligence of the government.

A carpenter, Nazir Ahmad had died in July 2013 in north Kashmir’s Uri, when 11000 KV live electric supply line accidently fell on his head.

In a plea before the single judge bench, the victim’s family had sought the court's intervention for a direction to the government for compensation. The single judge while deciding the plea on September 9, 2022 had directed the government to pay a compensation of Rs 24,30,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition in favour of the next of kin of the deceased.

The Court ordered the payment of the compensation after it concluded that the accident which consumed the life of the carpenter was attributable to the negligence of the government.

The government challenged the single judge’s decision before the division bench with the contention that the incident which resulted in death of the deceased had happened due to the deceased himself fiddling with the live electric supply wire and that no negligence was attributable to the appellants( government).

It also contended that on the quantum of compensation, the single bench had not followed the guidelines for computing the compensation as laid down in the case of “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi” reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. It was also contended that the deceased’s family had not placed on record any proof of income and the age of the deceased at the time of accident.

“We are of the considered opinion that the learned writ Court (single Judge) has rightly concluded that the accident which consumed the life of the deceased was attributable to the negligence of the appellants (government). The maintenance of electric supply live lines is the duty of the appellants and more particularly when the appellants are dealing with such hazardous activity. The negligence in the accident that happens in relation to such activity has to be presumed,” the division bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar said while deciding the appeal.

Regarding the quantum of compensation, the division bench pointed out that the single judge had erred in computing a just and fair compensation payable to the deceased’s next of kin.

The Court observed that as reflected in the post mortem report, the age of the deceased was 45 years and in absence of any other proof on record the same should have been taken as a basis for working out the compensation to be paid to the next of the kin of the deceased. The division bench also held that the single judge had failed to appreciate that in the absence of any proof brought on record by the petitioners with regard to the income of the deceased. “The income of the deceased ought to have been determined on the basis of minimum wages which were prescribed for a labourer at the relevant point of time”. Pointing out that the minimum wages as contended by the counsel for appellants (government) in the year 2013 was less than Rs 200, the division bench said having regard to the facts and circumstances it has taken minimum wages as Rs 250 per day. Similarly, the bench said the future prospectus to be added to the income of the deceased ought to have been 25% having regard to the age of the deceased which at the relevant point was 45 years.

While the division bench held that going by these calculations, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs 10, 50,000, it said in addition thereto the next of kin of the deceased were also entitled to Rs 15000 as loss of estate, Rs 40000 as loss of consortium and funeral expenses of Rs 15,000.

The Court concluded that the total amount that would be payable to the next of kin of the deceased would be 11, 20,000. “This amount shall be payable with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till its realization as is provided by the learned writ Court (single judge ), " the division bench said.