# Kaneez Fatima v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 1106
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 25065 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kaneez-fatima-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47964
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Maintainability - Fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 -
Enforcement - Writ against order passed
by authority u/s 161 of the Electricity Act,
2003, how far maintainable - Held, if just
compensation is not awarded, it would
affect fundamental rights of the sufferer
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. Therefore, order
so passed would be amenable to writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. (Para 30)
B. Electricity Act, 2003 - Policy decision
dated
25.09.2021
-
Guidelines
for
compensation on electrocution - Para 2 -
Right
to
get
just
compensation
-
Petitioner's
husband
died
due
to
electrocution on account of defective
installation of 11 KV overhead line by the
respondents - Application of multiplier -
Compensation for future prospect and loss
of consortium - Held, compensation for
death of the husband of the petitioner due
to
electrocution
is
payable
to
the
petitioner applying the multiplier of 18 -
At the time of death, the age of deceased
was 27 years, hence 40% towards future
prospect was added applying the principle
laid down in Panay Sethi's case - Rs.
66,85,000/-
was
determined
as
compensation payable to the petitioner.
(Para 14, 15, 19 and 33)
C. Compensation - Notional Income -
Determination of income of non-earning
victim - Relevance of notional income to
compute the compensation - Held, in the
absence
of
proof
of
actual
income,
notional income is determined to compute
compensation. (Para 18)
C.
Compensation
-
Consortium
-
Relevance
in
determining
just
compensation
-
Consortium
is
a
compendious term which encompasses
'spousal
consortium',
'parental
consortium', and 'filial consortium'. The
right to consortium would include the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family - With respect
to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse. (Para
20)
D. Tort law - Compensation for negligence
- Strict liability - Principle laid down in
MC Mehta's case and confirmed in Shail
Kumari's case relied upon - Where an
enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity and harm is
caused on anyone on account of the
accident in the operation of such activity,
the enterprise is strictly and absolutely
liable to compensate those who are
affected by the accident - Such liability is
not subject to any of the exceptions to the
principle of strict liability under the rule in
Rylands v. Fletcher. (Para 28)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,939 of 114,725. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39939 for what follows._

1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
since
the
petitioner
had
retired
on
30.06.2014 and even after a lapse of two
years, retiral benefits of the petitioner were
not been paid on account of alleged
recovery
against
the
petitioner,
the
petitioner requested the respondents to
temporarily stop the amount equivalent to
the alleged recovery and remaining retiral
benefits may be released. The petitioner
had
requested
the
respondents
to
temporarily stop the payment of the amount
equivalent to the alleged recovery from the
retiral dues of the petitioner since the
representation
against
the
aforesaid
recovery
was
pending
before
the
respondents
for
consideration.
The
aforesaid consent was only to stop the due
amount temporarily till the objection and
representation of petitioner is pending and
release
the
remaining
amount.
The
employee had never given an undertaking
that the recovery amount may be adjusted
from the dues.

23. There is one more aspect of the
matter that the payment of salary and other
financial benefits of an employee is always
subject to audit proceeding. Each department
of the government is subjected to audit
periodically, such periodical audit is done
with the object that any mistake by the
employer or the authority concerned in
payment of financial benefit to the employee,
the same may be brought to the knowledge
and rectified at the earliest. In the present
case, the mistake was made in the year 2008
when the third ACP was granted, however
the same was detected after his retirement in
the year 2016. The audit is normally held
periodically and nothing has been brought on
record as to why the audit has not objected to
such erroneous fixation earlier. If the
government has established the Audit
Department to keep a check then it is
imperative on the aforesaid department to
raise the issue at the earliest. Once an
employee has retired and has travelled in
service for substantial years after fixation of
pay then recovery of such amount at the
behest of the employer when there is no fault
of employee will entail hardship as the
recovery under the equity jurisdiction is not
permissible under law.

24. As a result, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 8.9.2016
passed
by
Executive
Engineer,
Rural
Engineering Department, Ghazipur Division
Ghazipur and consequential order dated
2.5.2017 passed by Additional Director,
Treasury and Pension, Varanasi Region,
Varanasi, are set aside.

25. Consequentially, the amount
recovered in pursuance to the impugned
orders dated 8.9.2016 and 2.5.2017, shall be
restored in favour of the petitioner within a
period of three months.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 1106
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 25065 of 2022

Kaneez Fatima ....Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Araf Khan, Sonakshi Arora

Counsel for the RespondentS:
C.S.C., Arti Raje, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Sr.
Advocate
11 All. Kaneez Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1107
A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Maintainability - Fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 -
Enforcement - Writ against order passed
by authority u/s 161 of the Electricity Act,
2003, how far maintainable - Held, if just
compensation is not awarded, it would
affect fundamental rights of the sufferer
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. Therefore, order
so passed would be amenable to writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. (Para 30)
B. Electricity Act, 2003 - Policy decision
dated
25.09.2021
-
Guidelines
for
compensation on electrocution - Para 2 -
Right
to
get
just
compensation
-
Petitioner's
husband
died
due
to
electrocution on account of defective
installation of 11 KV overhead line by the
respondents - Application of multiplier -
Compensation for future prospect and loss
of consortium - Held, compensation for
death of the husband of the petitioner due
to
electrocution
is
payable
to
the
petitioner applying the multiplier of 18 -
At the time of death, the age of deceased
was 27 years, hence 40% towards future
prospect was added applying the principle
laid down in Panay Sethi's case - Rs.
66,85,000/-
was
determined
as
compensation payable to the petitioner.
(Para 14, 15, 19 and 33)
C. Compensation - Notional Income -
Determination of income of non-earning
victim - Relevance of notional income to
compute the compensation - Held, in the
absence
of
proof
of
actual
income,
notional income is determined to compute
compensation. (Para 18)
C.
Compensation
-
Consortium
-
Relevance
in
determining
just
compensation
-
Consortium
is
a
compendious term which encompasses
'spousal
consortium',
'parental
consortium', and 'filial consortium'. The
right to consortium would include the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family - With respect
to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse. (Para
20)
D. Tort law - Compensation for negligence
- Strict liability - Principle laid down in
MC Mehta's case and confirmed in Shail
Kumari's case relied upon - Where an
enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity and harm is
caused on anyone on account of the
accident in the operation of such activity,
the enterprise is strictly and absolutely
liable to compensate those who are
affected by the accident - Such liability is
not subject to any of the exceptions to the
principle of strict liability under the rule in
Rylands v. Fletcher. (Para 28)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. WRIT - C No. - 10191 of 2009; Shiv Ranshu
Chhuneja Vs St. Of U.P. & ors. decided on
10.04.2018
2. MISC. BENCH No. - 6929 of 2014; Yash Pal
Singh (Minor) & Anr. Vs St. Of U.P. Thru.Prin.
Secy. (Electricity) & 5 Ors. decided on
24.04.2017
3. Kirti Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; (2021) 2
SCC 166
4. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand; (2020) 4 SCC 413
5. Lata Wadhwa Vs St. of Bihar; (2001) 8 SCC 197
6. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680
7. Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu
Ram; (2018) 18 SCC 130
8. Rajesh Vs Rajbir Singh; (2013) 9 SCC 54
9. Sarla Verma Vs DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121
10. Maharaja Agrasen Hospital Vs Rishabh
Sharma; (2020) 6 SCC 501
11. Raman Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Ltd.; (2014) 15 SCC 1
12. M.P. Electricity Board Vs Shail Kumari;
(2002) 2 SCC 162
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10191 of 2009;
Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
decided on 10.04.2018
14. R. Valli & ors. Vs Tamil Nadu St. Transport
Corporation Ltd.; (2022) 5 SCC 107
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Shri Araf Khan, learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned standing
counsel for the State-respondent and Shri
M.C.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advicate
assisted by Ms. Arti Raje, learned counsel
for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

Brief Facts:-

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present
case are that the petitioner's husband,
namely Hani Khan died on 10.04.2022 on
account of electrocution by 11 KV
overhead line which was installed by the
respondents at a height of less than 4.7
meters in breach of Rule 77 of of the Rules,
1956 and non-maintenance of the aforesaid
line by the respondents as per provisions of
Rule 29 of the Rules, 1956.

3. As per admitted case of the
respondents, the death of the husband of
the petitioner was caused on 10.04.2022.
The petitioner submitted entire desired
papers including certificate of Maharani
Laxmi Bai Medical College and Hospital,
Jhansi, dated 10.04.2022 in which cause of
death of her husband has been shown as
electric
current,
Panchnama
dated
10.04.2022 and death certificate dated
20.04.2022 etc. of her husband.

4. Petitioner's statement was recorded
by
the
competent
authority/Electricity
Safety Officer on 13.04.2022. Form 4
under Section 161(2) of the Electricity
Act, 2003 was submitted by the Deputy
Director, Electricity Safety, Government
of Uttar Pradesh, Jhansi, Region, Jhansi
on
18.04.2022
in
which
the
entire
particulars of the incidence and the
investigation
report
etc.
were
well
mentioned with reference to documentary
evidences, namely, first information report
dated 11.04.2022, detailed report dated
11.04.2022, police report, medical report
received on 15.04.2022 and investigation
report dated 13.04.2022 etc. The fact of
cause of death of the petitioner's
husband being electric current and
negligence of officers and employees
were also recorded in the said report.

5. On 18.04.2022 the Deputy
Director, Electricity Safety, Government
of Uttar Pradesh, Jhansi Region, Jhansi,
submitted a report to the respondent no.2
requesting him to take action as per
relevant Government orders and also
submitted
that
investigation
under
Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003
has
been
completed
and
recommendation for compensation to the
petitioner has been made which is to be
paid by the Electricity Distribution
Corporation. Thus, by 18.04.2022 all the
required investigation and reports were
submitted by the competent authorities
to the respondent no.2 for payment of
compensation to the petitioner.

6. In paragraph 8 of the writ
petition, the petitioner has specifically
stated that her deceased husband was
working as a contractor of M/s. Sri
Ramdoot Steelfab and his total income
was around Rs.3,50,000/- per annum and
in support thereof she has also submitted
proof of income namely income tax
return/acknowledgement relating to A.Ys.
2017-18, 2019-20 (Net Total Income
11 All. Kaneez Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1109
Rs.3,47,630/-) and 2021-22 (Net Total
Income Rs.3,71,230/-), copies of which
have been collectively filed as Annexure 7
to the writ petition. The contents of
paragraph-8
of
the
writ
petition
regarding annual income of the deceased
to
be
Rs.3,50,000/-
supported
by
documentary
evidences
as
aforementioned has been admitted by
the respondents in paragraph-7 of the
counter affidavit/ affidavit of compliance
dated 06.09.2022.

7. Thus, it is undisputed that the
income of the deceased based on average
income of last three years, was more than
Rs.3,50,000/- per annum. It has also been
admitted by the respondents in paragraph-6
of the aforesaid personal affidavit/ counter
affidavit dated 06.09.2022 that the death of
the petitioner's husband was caused due to
defective installation of 11 KV overhead line.

8. Thus, as per admitted case of the
respondents, the death of the petitioner's
husband was caused on 10.04.2022 due to
defective installation of 11 KV overhead
line of the respondents. Since on admitted
facts of the case, the respondents have not
paid compensation to the petitioner, therefore,
the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition praying for the following relief:

"i) Issue writ, order or direction in
the nature of MANDAMUS commanding/
directing the Respondents to compensate the
victim's
family
with
such
justifiable/
reasonable amount which this Hon'ble court
may deem fit and necessary in the interest of
justice at the earliest.

ii) Pass any other order or
direction which this Hon'ble court may deem
fit and necessary in the interest of justice"

Submissions:-

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is entitled for
just compensation on the basis of her
deceased
husband's
admitted
annual
income, in terms of the law laid down in
two Division Bench judgments of the this
court in Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja vs. State
Of U.P. And Others (WRIT - C No. - 10191
of 2009, decided on 10.04.2018) and in Yash
Pal Singh (Minor)& Anr. vs. State Of U.P.
Thru.Prin. Secy. (Electricity) & 5 Ors.
(MISC. BENCH No. - 6929 of 2014, decided
on 24.04.2017). Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the petitioner is
a widow lady and there are four dependents
of the deceased and she is running from pillar
to post to get just compensation in terms of
the aforesaid judgments read with the policy
decision of the respondents dated 25.09.2021
but compensation has not been paid to them
and she and her family have been left with no
source of income for their survival. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that
it is only after this court passed the order
dated 01.09.2022 and 08.09.2022, the
respondents have paid merely a sum of Rs.5
lacs and stated on 09.09.2022 before this
Court that the total compensation is
Rs.7,23,506/- out of which Rs.5 lacs have
been paid as per sanction letter dated
03.09.2022 and the balance amount of
Rs.2,23,500/- shall be paid soon. He submits
that the aforesaid computation of the
compensation is based merely on notional
income of Rs.51,000/- per annum whereas it
has been admitted by the respondents that the
actual annual income of the deceased from
contract work was Rs.3,50,000/-. He submits
that under the circumstances, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed with exemplary cost.

10.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents submits that the facts of
incident causing death of the petitioner's
husband due to defective installation of 11
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
KV overhead line and his income have
been admitted by the respondents in
paragraphs-6 and 7 of their personal
affidavit/
counter
affidavit
dated
06.09.2022. He submits that the aforesaid
judgments relied by the learned counsel for
the petitioner have no application on facts
of the present case inasmuch as subsequent
to the aforesaid judgments, a policy
decision providing compensation has been
taken by the U.P. Power Corporation on
25.09.2021
in
169th
Meeting
and
compensation
is
liable
to
be
paid
accordingly.

Discussion and Findings:-

11. We have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the records of the writ
petition.

12. It is admitted by the respondents
that the deceased husband of the petitioner
namely Hani Khan died on 10.04.2022 due
to electrocution on account of defective
installation of 11 KV overhead line by the
respondents. It has also been admitted by
the respondents in their personal/ counter
affidavit dated 06.09.2022 that the actual
income of the deceased husband of the
petitioner was Rs.3,50,000/- per annum
based on last three years income tax return.

13. The policy decision of the U.P.
Power Corporation dated 25.09.2021 for
payment of compensation in case of death
or disability due to electrocution, much
relied by the respondents, is reproduced
below:

^^m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM

 1⁄4m0iz0 ljdkj dk miØe1⁄2

 U.P. Power Corporation Limited

(Govt.
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Undertaking)

'kfDr Hkou foLrkj] 14 v'kksd ekxZ]
y[kuÅ&226001

la[;k%&
2828&vkSl@2021&191⁄41251⁄2&,0,l0@01 fnukad
25 flrEcj] 2021

fo"k;%& =`fViw.kZ fo|qr vf/k"Bkiu ds dkj.k
gqbZ fo|qrh; nq?kZVuk esa ckgjh O;fDr dh e`R;q
vFkok
viaxrk@i'kqvks
dh
e`R;q@Qly
vfXudk.M rFkk lEifRr ds izdj.kksa esa {kfriwfrZ
iznku fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA

dk;kZy; Kki

m0 iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fy0 ds funs'kd
dh 169oha cSBd esa fy, x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj m0
iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fy0 ,oa mlds lg;ksxh
fMLdke ds fu;a=.kk/khu {ks=ksa esa =qfViw.kZ fo|qrh;
vf/k"Bkiu ds QyLo:i ?kfVr nq?kZVukvksa esa fdlh
ckgjh O;fDr dh e`R;q vFkok viaxrk@i'kqvksa dh
e`R;q@ Qly vfXudk.M rFkk lEifRr ds uqdlku
gksus dh fLFkfr esa izHkkfor O;fDr vFkok mlds
oS/kkfud okfjl dks fu/kkZfjr le;&lhek esa
{kfriwfrZ iznku fd;s tkus ,oa fuLrkj.k ds lEcU/k
esa
dkjiksjs'ku
ds
vkns'k
la[;k&
1890&bZ0,0@jk0fo0i0@ vkS0la0&18@92&8@
fofo/k@92 fnukad 26-09-1992] vkns'k la[;k&
4570& vkS0la0&17@ikdkfy@2004 fnukad 2509-2004] vkns'k la[;k& 3286&vkS0la0@ 2011
fnukad
19-10-2011
vkns'k
la[;k&
4095&vkS0la0@2016 fnukad 13-10-16 vkns'k
la[;k& 1816&vkS0la0@2017 fnukad 10-04-2017]
vkns'k la[;k& 4004& vkS0la0@2018 fnukad 0610-2018
lifBr
vkns'k
la[;k&
402&vkS0la0@2019
fnukad
21-02-2019
dks
voØfer djrs gq, {kfriwfrZ izfØ;k ds ljyhdj.k
o Rofjr fuLrkj.k gsrq ,dy O;oLFkk ,rn~}kjk
fuEuor izfrikfnr dh tkrh gS%&

fo|qr nq?kZVuk dh fLFkfr esa tkWp izfØ;k%&

1- =`fViw.kZ fo|qr vf/k"Bku ds dkj.k gqbZ
fo|qrh; nq?kZVuk esa ckgjh O;fDr dh e`R;q vFkok
viaxrk@i'kqvksa dh e`R;q@ Qly vfXudk.M rFkk
lEifRr ds izdj.kksa ds lEcU/k esaA

- fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 dh /kkjk 53 ds
izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj lqjf{kr fo|qr vkiwfrZ esa
foQyrk
ds
dkj.k
fdlh
11 All. Kaneez Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1111
tugkfu@i'kqgkfu@Qly vFkok lEifRr ds
uqdlku dh lwpuk izkIr gksus ij] lEcfU/kr
mi[k.M vf/kdkjh@ lgk;d vfHk;Urk 24 ?k.Vs
ds vUnj fo|qr lqj{kk funs'kky; dks lwfpr djsxk
,oa 02 fnol ds vUnj fo|qr nq?kZVuk ds lEcU/k
esa fu/kkZfjr izi= la0& 441⁄4,1⁄2 ij lgk;d
funs'kd@ mi funs'kd@ funs'kd] fo|qr lqj{kk
funs'kky; dks lwfpr djsxs rFkk lkFk esa fo|qr
lqj{kk funs'kk;y] m0iz0 }kjk lapkfyr csolkbV
Vidyutsuraksha.org ij ?kVuk dk fooj.k
viyksM Hkh djasxsA blds vfrfjDr fo|qr nq?kZVuk
dh lwpuk ftyk iz'kklu@ iqfyl iz'kklu ,oa
fudVre fpfdRlky; dks nsxsa rFkk dkWjiksjs'ku ds
mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkh laKkfur djk;saxsA

- fo|qr nq?kZVuk dh lwpuk izkIr gksus ij
lgk;d funs'kd@mi funs'kd@funs'kd] fo|qr
lqj{kk }kjk LFkkyh; tk¡p 18 fnukas esa 1⁄4fo|qr
vfXudk.M ds dkj.k Qlyksa ,oa lEifRr dh {kfr
ds izdj.k esa 02 fnol esa1⁄2 iw.kZ dj tk¡p vk[;k
v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk dks izsf"kr djsaxs rFkk mldh
izfrfyfi vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk ,oa lEcfU/kr fo|qr
forj.k fuxe ds izcU/k funs'kd ,oa eq[;
vfHk;Urk dks miyC/k djk;saxsA

- dfri; dkj.kksa ls ;fn e`rd dh
iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ,oa ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fjiksVZ vkfn
vfHkys[kksa dh vuqiyC/krk gksus dh fLFkfr esa
{kfriwfrZ 1⁄4vuqxzg jkf'k1⁄2 ds Hkqxrku esa mRiUu gqbZ
leL;kvksa ij tk¡p desVh cukdj o ftykf/kdkjh
ds le{k rF;ksa dks ykdj izdj.k dk fu;ekuqlkj
fof/kor Li"V :i ls fuLrkj.k lqfuf'pr fd;k
tk;sxkA

- m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku ds v/khu fo|qr
forj.k fuxeksa es fnukad 01-01-1992 ls 06-1-2018
ds e/; ?kfVr fo|qr nq?kZVukvksa ds yfEcr izdj.kks
esa ckgjh O;fDr;ksa ds ,oa i'kqvksa dh e`R;q@ ?kk;y
gksus dh {kfriwfrZ iwoZor lEcfU/kr vkns'kksa ds
vUrxZr vuqeU; dh tk;sxhA

- fo|qrh; nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k mRiUu gqbZ
foijhr iz'kklfud fLFkfr 1⁄4lM+d tke@ mxz
izn'kZu vkfn1⁄2 ds dkj.k ;fn rRdky vuqxzg
/kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk vko';d gks rks]
,slh fLFkfr esa {ks= ds ftykf/kdkjh {kfriwfrZ@
vuqxzg jkf'k dh Lohd`fr gsrq l{ke vf/kdkjh
gksaxsA

2- {kfriwfrZ ds :i eas nh tkus okyh vuqxzg
jkf'k dh çfØ;k dk fooj.k%&

ckgjh O;fDr dh fo|qr nq?kZVuk esa gqbZ
e`R;q@viaxrk dh n'kk esa

dkjiksjs'ku ds =`fViw.kZ fo|qrh; vf/k"Bku ds
dkj.k gqbZ ckgjh O;fDr dh fo|qr nq?kZVuk ls
izHkkfor ckgjh O;fDr@ okfjl dks {kfriwfrZ@
eqvkotk fn;s tkus gsrq fuEu O;oLFkk izfrikfnr
dh tkrh gS%&

- =`fViw.kZ fo|qrh; vf/k"Bkiu ds dkj.k
fo|qr nq?kZVuk esa ckgjh O;fDr dh e`R;q gksus ij
{kfriwfrZ ds :i esa :0 5-00 yk[k] vuqxzg jkf'k
ns; gSA m0iz0 'kklu }kjk xfBr lfefr dh
laLrqfr;ksa ds vuqlkj e`rd dh vk;q ds lkis{k
;fn fdlh O;fDr dh x.kuk ds vuqlkj {kfriwfrZ
dh /kujkf'k :0 5-00 yk[k ds de gksus ij
lEcfU/kr e`rd ds vkfJrksa dks U;wure :0 5-00
yk[k dh {kfriwfrZ vuqeU; dh tk;sxhA

- fo|qr nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q] LFkk;h@ iw.kZ
viaxrk@ vkaf'kd viaxrk gksus ij] {kfriwfrZ
nq?kZVukxzLr O;fDr dh fookfgr@ vfookfgr
fLFkfr] vk;q ,oa ifjokj dh la[;k ds vk/kkj ij
lfefr dh fjiksVZ 1⁄4rkfydk&1 ,oa 21⁄2 esa nh xbZ
lkjf.k;ksa ds vuqlkj vuqeU; fd;k tk;sxkA

- l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk ?kkrd@ v?kkrd
fo|qr nq?kZVukvksa esa dkjiksjs'ku ds vf/k"Bkiu dh
=`fV u gksus dh fLFkfr esa No fault
liability ds :i esa vuqxzg /kujkf'k dh
{kfriwfrZ Lohd`r dh tk;sxhA

- ckgjh O;fDr dh e`R;q dh n'kk es] {kfriwfrZ
ds :i esa vuqxzg jkf'k Lohd`fr djus gsrq v/kh{k.k
vfHk;Urk l{ke vf/kdkjh gksxsaA

- vuqxzg /kujkf'k@ {kfriwfZrZ gsrq lEcfU/kr
vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk }kjk fuEu çfØ;k dk ikyu
fd;k tk;sxk%&

- lEcfU/kr vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] funs'kd]
fo|qr lqj{kk ls fo|qr nq?kZVuk ls lEcfU/kr tkap
vk[;k izkIr gksus ij ihfM+r ifjokj ds }kjk izLrqr
vkosnu i= ,oa miyC/k djk;s x;s lk{;ksa@
vfHkys[kksa dks ladfyr djsaxsA

- fo|qr nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gksus ij ckgjh
O;fDr ds ifjokjtuksa ls izkIr vkosnu ds vuqlkj]
mRrkjkf/kdkjh dh lwpuk] e.My dk;kZy; lfgr
lEcfU/kr fo|qr dk;kZy; esa pLik djsaxs] ftlesa
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vkifRr izLrqr djus gsrq 07 fnuksa dk le; fn;k
tk;sxkA

- vkifRr izkIr djus dh le;kof/k lekIr
gksus ij] 07 fnu ds vUnj mRrjkf/kdkjh ls mudk
vk/kkj dkMZ@ pquko igpku&i= 1⁄4oksVj vkbZ0
Mh01⁄2@
iSudkMZ@
jk'kudkMZ@
ikliksVZ@
ys[kiky vFkok xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh }kjk iznRr
dqVqEc jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij ihfM+r ifjokj ds
mRrjkf/kdkjh dk fu/kkZj.k fof/kd ekin.Mksa ds
vk/kkj ij djrs gq;s izdj.k esa {kfriwfrZ Lohd`fr
dk dkj.k] vkns'k esa fyf[kr :i ls vafdr
1⁄4Recording reason in writing1⁄2 djrs gq,
vkns'k fuxZr djasxsA mRrkjkf/kdkjh ds lEcU/k eas
fdlh Hkh izdkj ds fookn dh fLFkfr esa fof/kd
:i ls le{k vf/kdkjh }kjk iznRr mRrkjkf/kdkj
izek.ki= izkIr gksus ds mijkUr gh vfxze dk;Zokgh
dh tk;sA

- {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa vuqxzg jkf'k izkIr djus
okys dks v.MjVsfdax nsuk gksxk fd ;fn fdlh Hkh
izdkj dk fookn mRiUu gksus ij muds }kjk mDr
/kujkf'k foHkkx dks okil dh tk;sxh vkSj vxj
rF; xyr ik;s x;s rks muds fo:) fof/kd
dk;Zokgh Hkh dh tk;sxhA

- fdlh ckgjh O;fDr dh fo|qrh; nq?kZVuk esa
e`R;q dh n'kk esa] {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa nh x;h
vuqxzg jkf'k ds vfrfjDr] e`rd vkfJr ds v/khu
fdlh Hkh izdkj dk lsok;kstu vFkok dksbZ vU;
vuqrks"k vuqeU; ugha gksxsA

3- ckgjh O;fDr dh fo|qr nq?kZVuk esa ?kk;y
gksus dh n'kk esaA

- ckgjh O;fDr dh fo|qr nq?kZVuk esa ?kk;y
gksus dh n'kk esa] {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa vuqxzg jkf'k
Lohd`fr djus gsrq v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk l{ke
vf/kdkjh gksxsA

- v?kkrd fo|qr nq?kZVuk esa fdlh O;fDr ds
vkaf'kd@ iw.kZ viaxrk gksus ij rkfydk&1 esa fn;s
x;s fodykaxrk izfr'kr ds vk/kkj ij {kfriwfrZ@
vuqxzg jkf'k dk vkadyu fd;k tk;sxkA

- fo|qr lqj{kk funs'kky; }kjk izLrqr tkap
vk[;k] eq[r fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr
fodykaxrk izek.k&i=] ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dh izfr
,oa foHkkxh; tkap esa izkIr laLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij
{kfriwfrZ dh dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk;sxhA

- {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa vuqxzg jkf'k izkIr djus
okys dks 'kiFk&i= nsuk gksxk fd ;fn fdlh Hkh
izdkj dk fookn mRiUu gksus ij muds }kjk mDr
/kujkf'k foHkkx dks okil dh tk;sxh vkSj vxj
rF; xyr ik;s x;s rks mlds fo:) fof/kd
dk;Zokgh Hkh dh tk;sxhA

4- fo|qr nq?kZVuk esa i'kq dh e`R;q gksus dh
n'kk esaA

- i'kq dh e`R;q dh n'kk es] {kfriwfrZ ds :i
esa vuqxzg jkf'k Lohd`fr djus gsrq] v/kh{k.k
vfHk;Urk l{ke vf/kdkjh gksaxsA

- fo|qr lqj{kk funs'kky; }kjk izLrqr tkap
vk[;k] i'kq dh Ø; jlhn] le{k i'kq fpfdRlk
vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh e`R;q izek.k i=] iksLVekVZe
fjiksVZ] ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dh izfr] foHkkxh; tkap esa
izkIr laLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij {kfriwfrZ dh dk;Zokgh
lqfuf'pr dh tk;sxhA

- {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa vuqxzg jkf'k izkIr djus
okys dks 'kiFk&i= nsuk gksxk fd ;fn fdlh Hkh
izdkj dk fookn mRiUu gksrk gS rks muds }kjk
mDr /kujkf'k foHkkx dks okil dh tk;sxh vkSj
vxj rF; xyr ik;s x;s rks muds fo:) fof/kd
dk;Zokgh Hkh dh tk;sxhA

5- fo|qrh; vfXudk.M esa Qlyksa@
lEifRr;ksa dh gqbZ {kfr ds lEcU/k esaA

- fo|qrh; vfXudk.M esa Qlyks@ lEifRr;ksa
dh gqbZ {kfr ds :i eas vuqxzg jkf'k Lohd`fr djus
gsrq eq[; vfHk;Urk 1⁄4forj.k1⁄2 l{ke vf/kdkjh gksaxsA

- fo|qr lqj{kk funs'kky;] m0iz0 'kklu dh
laLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij lEcfU/kr ihfM+r ifjokj ds
}kjk izLrqr vkosnu i= esa Hkw&Lokeh gksus ds
vfHkys[kks dk ekfydkuk gd ,oa [krkSuh@
ys[kiky }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s lk{;ksa@
vfHkys[kksa dks layXu fd;k tk;sxkA

- lEcfU/kr ftys ds rglhynkj ,oa
ftykf/kdkjh ds }kjk {kfr dk vkadyu ,oa laLr`fr
rFkk funs'kd] fo|qr lqj{kk funs'kky;] m0iz0
'kklu dh laLr`fr ds vk/kkj ij lEcfU/kr eq[;
vfHk;Urk 1⁄4fooj.k1⁄2 }kjk vuqxzg /kujkf'k dh
Lohd`fr iznku dh tk,xhA Lohd`r /kujkf'k dk
Hkqxrku [k.M Lrj ij fd;k tk;sxkA

- fo|qr nq?kZVuk eas ckgjh O;fDr;ksa@ i'kqvksa
ds izdj.kksa ds fuLrkj.k esa fo|qr lqj{kk funs'kky;
dh tkWp vk[;k ,oa laLr`fr izkIr gksus ds 10 fnuksa
ds vUnj {kfriwfrZ dh /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku dj
fn;k tk;s rFkk lEiw.kZ izfØ;k 30 fnuksa esa iw.kZ dj
yh tk;sA blds vfrfjDr Qly@ lEifRr;ksa dh
11 All. Kaneez Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1113
gqbZ {kfr ds QyLo:i {kfriwfrZ ds izdj.kks dks
fo|qr lqj{kk funs'kk;y dh laLr`fr o ftykf/kdkjh
dh vk[;k izkIr gksus ds vk/kkj ij 07 dk;Z
fnolksa ds Hkhrj Lohd`r ,oa fuLrkfjr fd;k tk;sA

- eq[; vfHk;Urk 1⁄4forj.k1⁄2 fo|qr nq?kZVuk ds
QyLo:i {kfriwfrZ ds izdj.kksa dk ekfld vk/kkj
ij vuqJo.k djsaxs ,oa Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr leLr
lwpuk;sa {ks=h; dk;kZy; esa lajf{kr j[ksaxs ,oa
nq?kZVukvks dks jksdus gsrq fd;s x;s iz;klksa dh
ekfld fjiksVZ izcU/k funs'kd] fMLdke dks HkstsaxsA
lEcfU/kr fMLdke@ {ks=@ e.My@ [k.M dk
nkf;Ro gksxk fd os vius dk;kZy; es fo|qr
nq?kZVukvksa ds izdkj.kks dh lwph cukdj lqjf{kr
j[ksaxs ,oa =`fViw.kZ vf/k"Bkiu dks Bhd fd;s tkus
gsrq fd;s x;s iz;klks dks Hkh fyfic) djsaxsA

GUIDE
LINES
FOR
COMPENSATION
ON
ELECTROCUTION

FAULT LIABILITY

A-Fatal Accident

1. Notional Income (N.I.) of victim
shall be taken in to consideration as Rs.
51,000 (Fifty One Thousand) per annum
(about Rs. 140 per day).

2. Multiplier shall be adopted as per
following chart

Age of Victim

Multiplier Applied (M.A.)

Up to 15 years

15

Above 15 years but not exceeding 20
years

16

Above 20 years but not exceeding 25
years

17

Above 25 years but not exceeding 30
years

18

Above 30 years but not exceeding 35
years

17

Above 35 years but not exceeding 40
years

16

Above 40 years but not exceeding 45
years

15

Above 45 years but not exceeding 50
years

13

Above 50 years but not exceeding 55
years

11

Above 55 years but not exceeding 60
years

8

Above 60 years but not exceeding 65
years

6

Above 65 years

5

3. The amount of compensation so
arrived at in the case of fatal accident
claims shall be deducted towards Personal
and living Expenses (P.E.) by

(i) 1/2nd if deceased was unmarried
but if family of a bachelor is large and
dependent on the income of the deceased,
the deduction shall be 1/3rd (33.33%)

(ii) 1/3rd if deceased was married
where dependent family members are 2 to 3
in number, 1/4th where dependent family
members 4 to 6 in number and 1/5th where
dependent family members are more than 6
in number.

(iii) For the purpose of calculation of
number of family members in clause (ii), a
minor dependent will be counted as half.

Spouse, parents and grand-parents
having no income and minor children shall
be deemed dependent family members.
(Parivar Register and affidavit may be
considered as proof of family members and
dependency).

4. The following General Damages
shall also be payable in addition to
Compensation Outlined (C.O.) above:

(i) Compensation for Loss of Estate
(L.E.) Rs. 5,000 (Five Thousand).

(ii)
Compensation
for
Loss
of
Consortium (L.C.), if beneficiary is spouse
Rs. 5.000 (Five Thousand).

(iii) Compensation for Loss of love
and Affection (L.A.) Rs. 5,000 (Five
Thousand).

(iv)
Funeral
Expenses
costs
of
transportation of body (F.E.) Rs. 5,000
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Five
Thousand)
or
actual
expenses
whichever is less.

(v)Medical Expenses (M.E.) -Actual
expenses incurred before death supported
by bills/vouchers but not exceeding Rs.
20,000 (Twenty Thousand).

Formula: N.I.*M.A.=C.O.

C.O.:P.E.= Amount

C.O.-
Amount+L.E.+L.C.+L.A.+F.E.+M.E.=Tota
l Compensation.

Example for spot death of a person
aged 14 years leaving behind mother and
father:

Rs.51000*15 (Multiplier)

 =765000

Rs.765000/3

=255000

Rs.765000-255000+
5000+5000+5000
=525000

B-Non-Fatal

General Damages in case of Injuries
and Disabilities:

(i) Pain and Suffering Grievous
injuries

(ii) Grievous injuries (G.I.) --

Rs. 10,000/-

(iii) Simple injuries (S.I.) -

Rs. 5,000/-

(ii) Medical Expenses (M.E.) :- Actual
expenses
incurred,
supported
by
bills/vouchers but not exceeding Rs. 20,000
for grievous injury and - Rs. 10,000 for
simple injury (on medical report)

Disability in non-fatal accidents:

The following compensation shall be
payable in cases of disabilities to the victim
arising out of non-fatal accidents:

C- Temporary Disability

Loss of income, if any, for actual
period of disablement not exceeding fifty
two weeks.

D- Permanent Disability

(a) In case of permanent total
disablement the amount payable shall be
arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of
income by the Multiplier applicable to the
age on the date of determining the
compensation, or

(b) In case of permanent partial
disablement
such
percentage
of
compensation, which would have been
payable in the case of permanent total
disablement as specified under item (a)
above.

Injuries deemed to result in Permanent
Total
Disablement/Permanent
Partial
Disablement and percentage of loss of
earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I
under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923,
Disability Certificate from Medical Board
mentioning percentage of disablement shall
be final and shall be taken in to
consideration.

Notional Income of victim shall be
taken in to consideration as Rs. 51,000
(Fifty One Thousand) per annum.

Example
for
100%
permanent
disability of person aged 14 years with
medical bills for amount. Rs. 20.000
(Twenty Thousand):

51000*15

=765000

765000*100/100

 =765000

765000+10000+20000
=795000

No Fault Liability

1. In death

- Rs. 1.000,00
(One Lac)

2. In permanent disability - Rs.
1,25,000 (One Lac and Twenty
Five Thousand)

3. Grievous injury -

Rs. 3000
(Eight Thousand

4. Simple injury -
Rs.
2000
(Three Thousand)

No compensation shall be paid if
victim was involved in illegal activities like
theft of electricity or riots etc. Third party
insurance system may also be introduced to
meet out compensation.
11 All. Kaneez Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1115

6- fo|qr nq?kZVuk esa i'kqvksa dh e`R;q@
?kk;y gksus ij orZeku esa izHkkoh {kfriwfrZ vuqxzg
jkf'k%&

nq/kk: i'kq

- HkSl] xk;] ÅWV] ;kd vkfn dh e`R;q gksus
ij :0 30]000@& 1⁄4rhl gtkj1⁄2 vuqeU; fd;k
tk;sxkA

- HksM+ cdjh] lqvj] vkfn dh e`R;q gksus ij
:0 3]000@& 1⁄4rhu gtkj1⁄2 vuqeU; fd;k tk;sxkA

nq/kk: i'kqvksa ds vfrfjDr i'kq

- ÅWV] ?kksM+k] cSy vkfn dh e`R;q gksus ij :0
25]000@& 1⁄4iPphl gtkj1⁄2 vuqeU; fd;k tk;sxkA

- cNM+k] x/kk] [kPpj vkfn dh e`R;q gksus ij
:0 16]000@& 1⁄4lksyg gtkj1⁄2 vuqeU; fd;k
tk;sxkA

7- vuq'kklukRed ,oa olwyh dh dk;Zokgh%&

fo|qr nq?kZVuk ds fy, nks"kh dkfeZd@
dkfeZdks dk mRrjnkf;Ro fu/kkZfjr djrs gq,
fMLdkWe ds izcU/k funs'kd ds Lrj ls ,d ekg ds
Hkhrj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk;sxhA

Ø0la0
fooj.k
eq[; nkf;Ro
i;Zos{k.kh; nkf;Ro
iz'kkldh; nkf;Ro
1.
,y0Vh0 ykbu
ykbueSu@ voj vfHk;Urk
mi[k.M vf/kdkjh
vf/k'kklh
vfHk;Urk
1⁄4forj.k1⁄2
2.
11@04 ifjorZd ;k blls
vf/kd ,oa 11 ds0oh0 ykbusa
ykbueSu@ voj vfHk;Urk
mi[k.M vf/kdkjh
vf/k'kklh
vfHk;Urk
1⁄4forj.k1⁄2
3.
33 ds0oh0 midsUnz

Vh0th0&2
1⁄4,l0,l0vks01⁄2@
voj vfHk;Urk
mi[k.M vf/kdkjh
vuqj{k.k&
vf/k'kklh
vfHk;Urk 1⁄4fo01⁄2] ijh{k.k&
voj vfHk;Urk@ lgk;d]
vfHk;Urk&ehVj
4.
33 ds0oh0 ykbu

voj
vfHk;Urk@
mi[k.M
vf/kdkjh
vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk 1⁄4fo01⁄2
v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk 1⁄4forj.k1⁄2

8- izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq vko';d
vfHkys[k%&
Ø0la
0
fo|qr nq?kZVuk dk izdkj
ihfM+r i{kdkj }kjk miyC/k djk;s tkus okys vfHkys[k
1.
ckgjh O;fDr;ks ds fo|qr nq?kZVuk
esa e`R;q gksus dh n'kk esa

1- fo|qr lqj{kk dh tkap vk[;k
2- e`R;q izek.ki=
3- l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk okfjlku izek.ki=
4- iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ
5- ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dh izfr
6- foHkkxh; tkap
2.
ckgjh O;fDr;ks ds fo|qr nq?kZVuk
esa ?kk;y gksus dh n'kk esaA

1- fo|qr lqj{kk dh tkap vk[;k
2- eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr fodykxrk izek.k i=
3- ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dh izfr
4- foHkkxh; tkap
3.
fo|qr nq?kZVuk es i'kqvksa dh e`R;q
gksus dh n'kk esaA

1- fo|qr lqj{kk dh tkap vk[;k
2- i'kq dh Ø; jlhn
3- i'kq dh e`R;q esa l{ke i'kq fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh e`R;q izek.k i=

4- iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ
5- ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dh izfr
6- foHkkxh; tkap
4.
Qly ds uqdlku gksus dh n'kk
esaA

1- fo|qr lqj{kk dh tkap vk[;k
2- Qly ds uqdlku esa Qly ekfyd d
lEcU/k esa iz/kku }kjk lR;kfir fooj.k i=
3- ftykf/kdkjh@ miftykf/kdkjh }kjk Ql
4- ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dh izfr
5- foHkkxh; tkap
5.
lEifRr ds uqdlku gksus dh n'kk
esaA

1- fo|qr lqj{kk dh tkap vk[;k
2- lEifRr ds uqdlku esa lEifRr ekfyd d
3- ftykf/kdkjh@ miftykf/kdkjh }kjk lEi
4- ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dh izfr
5- foHkkxh; tkap

dkjiksjs'ku eq[;ky; dks fMLdke ds ek/;e
ls /kujkf'k voeqDr gsrq izR;sd ekg ekWx i= fuEu
lwpuk ds lkFk izsf"kr fd;k tk;s%&

1 fo|qr nq?kZVuk dh izdj.kokj vk[;k@
=`fViw.kZ vf/k"Bku ds nwj fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa
dh xbZ dk;ZokghA

2 ihfM+r O;fDr@ ifjokj dks fo|qr nq?kZVuk
ds QyLo:i iznku dh xbZ {kfriwfrZ dk fooj.kA

3 fo|qr nq?kZVuk ds fy, nks"kh vf/kdkjh@
deZpkjh ds fo:) dh xbZ vuq'kklukRed ,oa
olwyh dh dk;Zokgh dk fooj.k layXu izk:i esa
miyC/k djk;k tk;sA

4 fo|qr lqj{kk funs'kky; ls izkIr vk[;k esa
nks"kh dkfeZdks ds fo:) dkjiksjs'ku ds
fu;ekuqlkj tkWp dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxh rFkk
lEcfU/kr dkfeZdksa dks vius cpko dk iwjk volj
nsrs gq, vko';d dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk;sxhA

,sls izdj.k ftuesa nq?kZVuk dh frfFk iz'uxr
vkns'k ds fuxZeu dh frfFk ls iwoZ dh gS] esa
rRdkyhu fo|eku fu;eksa@ vkns'kks ds vuqlkj gh
{kfriwfrZ dk fu/kkZfj.k fd;k tk;sxk lkFk gh fdlh
Hkh n'kk esa dksbZ iqjkuk izdj.k iqu:Zn?kkfVr ugha
fd;k tk;sxkA mi;qZDr leLr O;oLFkk;sa rRdky
izHkko ls ykxw dh tkrh gSA

funs'kd e.My dh vkKk ls**

14. As per para-2 read with
"guidelines
for
compensation
on
electrocution" of the afore-quoted policy
decision
dated
25.09.2021
of
the
respondents, the compensation is to be
determined on the basis of income of the
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
victim with minimum compensation of
Rs.5 lakhs. However, in the absence of
proof of actual income so as to avoid
litigation and to grant compensation
quickly to the dependents of the deceased,
a notional income of Rs.51,000/-, i.e.
Rs.140/- per day has been provided in the
aforesaid policy decision. In the present set
of facts, the actual annual income of the
deceased husband of the petitioner has been
admitted
by
the
respondents
at
Rs.3,50,000/- per annum and yet the
compensation of merely Rs.7,23,500/- has
been determined by them on the basis of
notional income of Rs.51,000/- per annum.
A computation chart and the policy
decision dated 25.09.2021 produced by the
respondents before us on 08.09.2022 have
been kept on record. In the aforesaid
computation chart, the respondents have
admitted the number of dependents of
the deceased to be four and the age of the
deceased to 27 years.

15. Thus, as per admitted case of the
respondents, the compensation for death of
the husband of the petitioner due to
electrocution on 10.04.2022 is payable to
the petitioner applying the multiplier of 18
as per aforequoted policy decision of the
corporation dated 25.09.2021.

Compensation - should be just,
reasonable and guided by principles of
fairness, equity and good conscience:-

16. In Kirti v. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 166 (Para-10),
Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the
law that any compensation awarded by a
court ought to be just, reasonable and
consequently must undoubtedly be guided
by principles of fairness, equity and good
conscience. In the case of Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 (para-33),
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is
well settled law that in the motor accident
claim petitions, the Court must award the
just compensation and, in case, the just
compensation is more than the amount
claimed, that must be awarded especially
where the claimant is a minor. In the case
of Kajal (Supra) (Paras-8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13 and 14), Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted
with approval certain foreign judgments
and its own judgment and held as under:

"8. In Phillips v. London & South
Western Railway Co., (1879) [L.R.] 5
Q.B.D.
78
(CA),
Field,
J.,
while
emphasising that damages must be full and
adequate, held thus : (QBD p. 79)

"... You cannot put the plaintiff
back again into his original position, but
you must bring your reasonable common
sense to bear, and you must always
recollect that this is the only occasion on
which compensation can be given. The
plaintiff can never sue again for it. You
have,
therefore,
now
to
give
him
compensation once and for all. He has
done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at
the hands of the defendants and you must
take care to give him full fair compensation
for that which he has suffered."

Besides, the Tribunals should
always remember that the measures of
damages in all these cases "should be such
as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he
had amply atoned for his misadventure".

9. In Mediana, In re, 1900 AC
113 (HL), Lord Halsbury held : (AC pp.
116-17)

"... Of course the whole region of
inquiry into damages is one of extreme
difficulty. You very often cannot even lay
down any principle upon which you can
give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to
the jury, or those who stand in place of the
jury, to consider what compensation in
11 All. Kaneez Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1117
money shall be given for what is a wrongful
act. Take the most familiar and ordinary
case : how is anybody to measure pain and
suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can
suggest that you can by any arithmetical
calculation establish what is the exact
amount of money which would represent
such a thing as the pain and suffering
which a person has undergone by reason of
an accident. In truth, I think it would be
very arguable to say that a person would be
entitled to no damages for such things.
What manly mind cares about pain and
suffering that is past? But nevertheless the
law recognises that as a topic upon which
damages may be given."

10. The following observations of
Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son
Ltd. v. Shephard, 1964 AC 326 : (1963) 2
WLR 1359 (HL), are very pertinent : (AC p.
346)

"... Money may be awarded so
that something tangible may be procured to
replace something else of the like nature
which has been destroyed or lost. But
money cannot renew a physical frame that
has been battered and shattered. All that
Judges and courts can do is to award sums
which
must
be
regarded
as
giving
reasonable compensation. In the process
there must be the endeavour to secure some
uniformity in the general method of
approach. By common assent awards must
be reasonable and must be assessed with
moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently
desirable
that
so
far
as
possible
comparable
injuries
should
be
compensated by comparable awards."

In the same case, Lord Devlin
observed (at p. 357) that the proper
approach to the problem was to adopt a test
as to what contemporary society would
deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow
the wrongdoer to "hold up his head among
his neighbours and say with their approval
that he has done the fair thing?", which
should be kept in mind by the court in
determining compensation in personal
injury cases.

11. Lord Denning while speaking
for the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James,
(1966) 1 QB 273 : (1965) 2 WLR 455 :
(1965) 1 All ER 563 (CA), laid down the
following three basic principles to be
followed in such like cases : (QB pp. 299300)

"First, assessibility : In cases of
grave injury, where the body is wrecked or
the brain destroyed, it is very difficult to
assess a fair compensation in money, so
difficult that the award must basically be a
conventional
figure,
derived
from
experience or from awards in comparable
cases. Secondly, uniformity : There should
be some measure of uniformity in awards
so that similar decisions are given in
similar cases; otherwise there will be great
dissatisfaction in the community, and much
criticism of the administration of justice.
Thirdly, predictability : Parties should be
able to predict with some measure of
accuracy the sum which is likely to be
awarded in a particular case, for by this
means cases can be settled peaceably and
not brought to court, a thing very much to
the public good."

12. The assessment of damages in
personal
injury
cases
raises
great
difficulties. It is not easy to convert the
physical and mental loss into monetary
terms.