# Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 637
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 10191 of 2009
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Shashi Kant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-ranshu-chhuneja-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44388
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri A.K. Singh, Sri N. Misra, Sri Subhash
Gosain

A.
Electricity
-
Electrocution
-
Compensation - Indian Electricity Act,
2003, S 161 - Constitution of India Art.
226 - Writ petition challenging order
passed u/s 161 of 2003 Act awarding
compensation
&
for
a
claim
of
compensation on account of electrocution
- maintainability of the writ petition - Held
- order passed by the Chief Electrical
Inspector u/s 161 of 2003 Act awarding
compensation is amenable under Article
226 - award of compensation in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 226 can be
undertaken provided there are no serious
disputed questions of fact involved (Para
11, 12)

B. Electricity - Electrocution - Quantum of
Compensation - adequate, just and fair
compensation
-
damages
towards
following heads - Aid for helper, minimum
sustenance allowance in order to ensure
survival,
medical
expenses,
ancillary
expenses, running expenses

On account of electrocution petitioner almost
100 % handicapped - accident took in year
2006 when petitioner was 14 years - in the
year 2008 petitioner received compensation of
Rs.50,000/ from the department - petitioner
started earning in 2013 & presently engaged in
private job earning Rs.39,000/- per month -
petitioner was not earning for 7 years i.e.
between 2006 -2013, for the said entire period
petitioner held entitled to Rs.10,000/- per
month for aiding him through a Helper -
petitioner's
full
earning
capacity
stood
diminished on account of his physical disability -
Court
Awarded
Rs.10,000/-
per
month
calculating the longevity of his life upto 70 years
as minimum sustenance allowance in order to
ensure his survival - Court awarded consolidated
sum of Rs.25 lacs in lieu of medical expenses. -
petitioner entitled to a total amount of
Rs.86,20,000 - Court directed that any delay in
payment would carry 9% simple interest per
annum on the unpaid amount (Para 30, 31, 32)

Allowed

List of Cases cited :

## Text

_Characters 0–39,956 of 47,860. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39956 for what follows._

3 All. Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
637

14. Accordingly, no interference is
warranted in the order impugned herein.

15. The petition is devoid of merits
and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2021)03ILR A637
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.

Writ-C No. 10191 of 2009

Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Awadhesh Kr. Singh, Sri S.N. Singh, Sri
Suresh Srivastava, Ms. Samridhi Arora

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Singh, Sri N. Misra, Sri Subhash
Gosain

A.
Electricity
-
Electrocution
-
Compensation - Indian Electricity Act,
2003, S 161 - Constitution of India Art.
226 - Writ petition challenging order
passed u/s 161 of 2003 Act awarding
compensation
&
for
a
claim
of
compensation on account of electrocution
- maintainability of the writ petition - Held
- order passed by the Chief Electrical
Inspector u/s 161 of 2003 Act awarding
compensation is amenable under Article
226 - award of compensation in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 226 can be
undertaken provided there are no serious
disputed questions of fact involved (Para
11, 12)

B. Electricity - Electrocution - Quantum of
Compensation - adequate, just and fair
compensation
-
damages
towards
following heads - Aid for helper, minimum
sustenance allowance in order to ensure
survival,
medical
expenses,
ancillary
expenses, running expenses

On account of electrocution petitioner almost
100 % handicapped - accident took in year
2006 when petitioner was 14 years - in the
year 2008 petitioner received compensation of
Rs.50,000/ from the department - petitioner
started earning in 2013 & presently engaged in
private job earning Rs.39,000/- per month -
petitioner was not earning for 7 years i.e.
between 2006 -2013, for the said entire period
petitioner held entitled to Rs.10,000/- per
month for aiding him through a Helper -
petitioner's
full
earning
capacity
stood
diminished on account of his physical disability -
Court
Awarded
Rs.10,000/-
per
month
calculating the longevity of his life upto 70 years
as minimum sustenance allowance in order to
ensure his survival - Court awarded consolidated
sum of Rs.25 lacs in lieu of medical expenses. -
petitioner entitled to a total amount of
Rs.86,20,000 - Court directed that any delay in
payment would carry 9% simple interest per
annum on the unpaid amount (Para 30, 31, 32)

Allowed

List of Cases cited :

1. Neetu Devi Vs State of U.P. & Ors. 2014 (9)
ADJ 649

2. Chokhe Lal Vs State of U.P. & Ors W.P. No.
35095 of 2014 dt 10.07.2014

3. Karan Singh & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Ors
W.P. No. 6785 of 2015 dt 10.02.2015

4. The State of Tripura & Anr. Vs Sridhan
Choudhury & Anr. AIR 2003 Gauhati 66

5. Chairman, Railway Boad & Ors Vs. Chandrima
Das (Mrs.) & Ors (2000) 2 SCC 465

6. Yash Pal Singh (Minor) and Anr. Vs State of
U.P. & Ors. 2017 (6) AllLJ 49

7. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution
Division-II Vs. Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat
& 4 Ors. W.P. Art. 227 No. 4068 of 2015 dt
17.09.2015
638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J. & Hon'ble Shashi Kant, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Samridhi Arora, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nripendra
Mishra,
Advocate
for
U.P.
Power
Corporation as well as learned Standing
Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition has been pending
since the year 2009 for a claim of
compensation by the petitioner on having
suffered substantial injury on account of
electrocution as a result whereof he claims
to be almost 100 per cent handicapped. The
respondents 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 which includes
the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation
through its Managing Director have filed a
short counter affidavit sworn by Mr.
L.K.Khan, the then Executive Engineer,
Electricity Urban Distribution Division-II,
Vasundhara, District Ghaziabad and the
affidavit has been affirmed on 15th March,
2009.

3. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the
said affidavit have been sworn on personal
knowledge whereas paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and
10 of the affidavit are based on record. To
the said counter affidavit a rejoinder
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner denying the contents of the said
counter affidavit to the extent indicated
therein.

4. This permanent disability on account
of the accident, which took place on 20th
June, 2006 at about mid-day 12.30 P.M. was
reported and a claim was set up with regard
to compensation which the petitioner was
entitled to receive.

5. It appears that father of the petitioner
kept on moving applications reminding the
authorities to award compensation as per his
request and it also appears that the accident
was reported to the police at the concerned
Police Station. The petitioner at the time of
accident was aged about 14 years.

6. Annexure 12 to the writ petition is
a letter dated 6th August, 2007 dispatched
by the Superintending Engineer to the
Executive Engineer to submit his report
with regard to award of compensation in
accordance with the rules applicable so
that the matter may be processed at the
Divisional level and further action in this
regard be taken. It appears that thereafter,
the machinery was set into motion and a
report was called for including that from
the Chief Electrical Inspector who is the
authority competent to deal with such
matters, keeping in view the provisions of
Section 161 of the Indian Electricity Act,
2003 (hereinafter referred to as "2003
Act"). The said report, that was processed,
has been filed as Annexure 13 to the writ
petition, which mentions the entire details
relating to the information received,
medical examination of the petitioner and
the report including the findings of the
Chief Electrical Inspector.

7. The said report alognwith the
entire documents was dispatched to the
Managing Director, Pachimanchal Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Ltd.-respondent no. 6 and a
copy of the same is Annexure 14 to the
writ petition. The matter remained pending
and since the petitioner or his father did
not receive any response in spite of the
matter
having
been
processed,
the
petitioner was compelled to file writ
petition no. 30589 of 2008 that was not
entertained subject to the observation that
the petitioner may file a claim before the
Electrical Inspector in terms of Section
161 of 2003 Act. The judgment of the
court is extracted herein under :-
3 All. Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
639

"Petitioner's case is that on account of
the fault of the Electricity Deptt. in
maintaining
the
lines,
the
petitioner
suffered serious injuries and he has filed
this petition seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to award him
compensation. Sri H.P. Dubey, learned
counsel for Power Corporation states that
the petitioner has remedy under Section
161 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

In view of the remedy available to the
petitioner, we do not find it a fit case for
interference in this petition, especially, as
the questions of facts are involved.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed
with the observation that the petitioner may
file a claim before the Electrical Inspector
under the provision of Section 161 of
Electricity Act, 2003 or may seek any other
remedy available to him."

8. It appears that the matter was
pursued by the petitioner before the Chief
Electrical
Inspector
and
upon
being
processed, an order was passed by the
Superintending
Engineer
on
13th
December, 2007 awarding compensation of
Rs.50,000/- only on the strength of an outer
limit of award of such compensation fixed
in terms of the Circular dated 19.04.2006, a
copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1
to the short counter affidavit.

9. This writ petition has been filed
praying for quashing the order dated
13.12.2007 and for a further mandamus
commanding the respondents to award
compensation of Rs.2 crores to the
petitioner
or
such
appropriate
compensation on account of total disability
suffered by the petitioner due to the said
accidental electrocution.

10. From the pleadings on record
what we find is that the main objection
taken by the respondents is to the
maintainability of the writ petition and
secondly, about the quantum which the
respondents alleged they are bound to
adhere keeping in view the circular dated
19.04.2006 of the Corporation. The third
argument, which has been advanced by Sri
Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the
Power Corporation is that there is a scope
for adjudication on account of contributory
negligence of the victim and in such
circumstances neither the writ petition
should be entertained nor compensation
should be awarded. He has relied on three
judgments to substantiate his contention on
the issue of maintainability of the writ
petition namely the judgment in the case of
Neetu Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2014
(9) ADJ 649, the judgment of the Division
Bench dated 10th July, 2014 in Writ
Petition No. 35095 of 2014 - Chokhe Lal
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Ors.
and the third judgment in the case of
Karan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
and 5 Others in Writ Petition No. 6785 of
2015 decided on 10th February, 2015. He
has further invited attention of the Court to
another Single Judge judgment of Gauhati
High Court in the Case of The State of
Tripura & Anr. Vs. Sridhan Choudhury
& Anr., AIR 2003 Gauhati 66 to buttress
his submission.

11. The first issue, therefore, that we
have to determine is as to whether the
present writ petition can be entertained and
maintained
for
the
award
of
such
compensation and for quashing of the order
passed by the respondent - Corporation. We
may put on record that the orders, which
have
been
passed
for
awarding
compensation is in the statutory exercise of
power under Section 161 of the 2003 Act.
Such an order being an order awarding
compensation partakes the nature of not
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
only an administrative order which touches
quasi judicial functions as it is an order
pertaining to award of compensation to a
person having suffered an injury and also
that virtually affects his fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution
of
India.
In
such
circumstances, the order passed by the
Chief Electrical Inspector can be made
amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It is not only to be tested on the
principle
of
administrative
law
and
reasonableness but also on the ground of
protection and enforcement of fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, which is one of the
primary duties of this Court as enshrined
under the Constitution of India. A writ
petition can be maintained before this
Court for which we find ample support
from the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Chairman, Railway Boad and
others Vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and
others, (2000) 2 SCC 465. Paragraphs 9 to
11 that are extracted hereinunder :

"9. Various aspects of the Public Law
field were considered. It was found that
though initially a petition under Article 226
of the Constitution relating to contractual
matters was held not to lie, the law
underwent
a
change
by
subsequent
decisions and it was noticed that even
though the petition may relate essentially to
a contractual matter, it would still be
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226. The Public
Law remedies have also been extended to
the realm of tort. This Court, in its various
decisions, has entertained petitions under
Article 32 of the Constitution on a number
of
occasions
and
has
awarded
compensation to the petitioners who had
suffered personal injuries at the hands of
the officers of the Govt. The causing of
injuries, which amounted to tortious act,
was compensated by this Court in many of
its decisions beginning from Rudul Sah v.
State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141 . (See also
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
(1985) 4 SCC 577; Peoples' Union for
Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar (1987)
1 SCC 265; Peoples' Union for Democratic
Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi
Police Headquarters (1989) 4 SCC 730;
Saheli, A Women's Resources center v.
Commissioner of Police, Delhi (1990) 1
SCC 422; Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of
U.P., AIR 1995 SC 117; P. Rathinam v.
Union of India 1989 Supp (2) SCC 716;
Death of Sawinder Singh Grower In re
1995 Supp (4) SCC 450; Inder Singh v.
State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 702; and
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1
SCC 416.

10. In cases relating to custodial
deaths and those relating to medical
negligence,
this
Court
awarded
compensation under Public Law domain in
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2
SCC 746; State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder
Trivedi (1995) 4 SCC 262; People's Union
for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997)
3 SCC 433 and Kaushalya v. State of
Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 754; Supreme Court
Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar
(1991) 3 SCC 482; Jacob George (Dr) v.
State of Kerala (1994) 3 SCC 430; Paschim
Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of
West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37 and Manju
Bhatia v. New Delhi Municipal Council
(1997) 6 SCC 370

11. Having regard to what has been
stated above, the contention that Smt.
Hanuffa Khatoon should have approached
the Civil Court for damages and the matter
should not have been considered in a
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution, cannot be accepted. Where
3 All. Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
641
public functionaries are involved and the
matter
relates
to
the
violation
of
Fundamental Rights or the enforcement of
public duties, the remedy would still be
available
under
the
Public
Law
notwithstanding that a suit could be filed
for damages under Private Law."

12. The second issue with regard to
determining such a question if there are
disputed questions of fact, have to be taken
into account keeping in view the provisions
of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It is correct
that a suit is not barred but it is also equally
correct that award of compensation in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India can be undertaken
provided there are no serious disputed
questions of fact involved which, in our
opinion, is clearly the case in the present
writ petition. The reason is not far to see,
inasmuch as, the petitioner in the writ
petition has come out with a clear case in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition that
he suffered the injury on account of the
respondent
corporation
having
not
maintained the standards of installation
while extending a High Tension line in
accordance
with
the
measurements
prescribed for laying down of such
overhead transmission line at a minimum
distance, as prescribed under the Rules.

13. Aforesaid, paragraphs 3 and 4 of
the writ petition are extracted herein under :

"3. That this writ petition is being
preferred
against
the
order
dated
13.12.2007 passed by respondent no.4
whereby a sum of Rs.50000/- was allowed
to be paid to th epetitioner as compensation
for the serious injury caused on account of
electrocution as a result of the petitioner
coming into contact with snapped live wire
of the electrical transmission line of the
respondents and order dated 18.11.2008
passed by respondent no.3 which was
communicated by Acting Director on the
aforesaid date whereby a recommendation
was made to the respondent no. 2, 4 and 5
for payment of the compensation thus
noting can be done by this office. A true
copy of the order dated 13.12.2007 passed
by
respondent
no.4,
communication
order/letter dated 18.11.2008 passed by
respondent no.3, copy of the claim petition
made by the petitioner before the Electrical
Inspector (respondent no.6), and as per
order dated 30.07.2008 passed by this
Hon'ble Court and copy whereof are being
filed herewith and marked as Annexure
no.1, 2, 3 and 4 to this writ petition.

4. That the respondent no.2 has
supplied the electricity to the citizen/
respondent to P.V.V.N. Housing society in
callous and capricious manner ignoring the
rules and the electric transmission line of
high power was kept at a height of only 7
and 8 feet from the earth whereas
according to the rules and regulations it
should be kept at least at the height of 35
feet from the earth. The respondents has
not adopted due precaution and safety
measures in supplying the electricity to the
residents of the society."

14. In response to the writ petition, a
short counter affidavit has been filed
without giving any specific reply to any of
the paragraphs of the writ petition yet the
respondents have denied their fault in any
manner whatsoever in paragraph 10 of the
counter affidavit, which is extracted herein
under :

"10. That in this matter there is no
fault on the part of the Uttar Pradesh
Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow. No staff
or officer of the electricity department was
responsible for this incident. It was an
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incidence which occurred due to the fault
petitioner
only.
In
spite
of
that
compensation of Rs.50,000/- as prescribed
in the office order dated 19, April 2006 and
Rs.2,51,000/- as contribution of staff &
officers of the circle was provided to the
petitioner. Therefore petitioner was given
more than the prescribed compensation."

15. The petitioner has replied to the
same in paragraph 9 of the rejoinder
affidavit, which is extracted herein under :-

"That the contents of paragraph 10 of
the counter affidavit are not admitted being
incorrect and wrong. It is incorrect to state
that there is no fault on the fault of U.P.
Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow. It is also
incorrect to state that no staff or officer of
the Electricity Department was responsible
for the incident. It is also incorrect to state
that the said incident occurred due to the
fault of petitioner. It is further submitted
that an enquiry was made by Acting
Director Vidyut Suraksha U.P. Government
Lucknow and a report was submitted which
has been filed as Annexure 13 to the writ
petition. From the enquiry report submitted
by Acting Director Vidyut Suraksha U.P.
Government Lucknow. It is established that
there was prima facie gross negligence on
the part of Electricity Department. The
contents of paragraph 17, 18 and 19 of the
writ petition are reaffirmed as correct."

16. In order to arrive at a conclusion as
to whether any of the facts have been
disputed or not, it would be apt to mention
that paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit
quoted above has been sworn on the basis of
record. The only record, which has been filed
alongwith the short counter affidavit is the
communication and the award of the
maximum amount to which the petitioner
was found entitled. No record has been filed
alongwith the short counter affidavit to
controvert the contentions which have been
raised in the writ petition pertaining to the
liability arising out of the allegation of
negligence of the respondent-department. To
the contrary what we find is that the report
has been made available and filed alongwith
the writ petition as Annexure 13 thereto,
which is the report of the Chief Electrical
Inspector that categorically records the entire
incident of the accident having taken place
when the petitioner had climbed up on a
boundary wall to retrieve a cricket ball with
which he was playing alongwith his friends.
The report categorically states that the
petitioner climbed up the wall and the High
Tension wires of 11000 KV line, that was
passing overhead, had sagged, as a result
whereof the petitioner came into contact with
the aforesaid loosened wire and met with the
accident. The report does not only mention
the happening as narrated, but it further goes
on to record that this accident occurred on
account of the clear negligence of the
officials of the department who were
enjoined with the duty to maintain the said
High Tension line in terms of Indian
Electricity Act, 1956 and the relevant
provisions in relation thereto. The findings in
the report are clearly to the effect that as a
matter of fact, notice was not taken of the
accident but later on a pole was installed in
order to lift the sagging line which in turn, in
our opinion, clearly demonstrates that the
factum of loosened wires hanging at a height
much below than what was required, clearly
establish the negligence of the officials who
are named in the said report and, therefore,
there is no doubt that the said report was
rightly
made
the basis
for
awarding
compensation by the respondents themselves.

17. We are extracting the report,
which is in vernacular hereinunder to
remove any doubt of the translation of the
3 All. Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
643
gist of the said report indicated herein
above :

^^vuqla/kku ,oa fy;s x;s c;kuksa ls Kkr gksrk gS
fd 33@11 ds0oh0 lc Lvs'ku uhfr[k.M&2]
bfUnjkiqje ls 11 ds0oh0 QhMj ua0 7 dh ykbu
bfUM;k ewu flVh dh ckmUMahoky ls yxHkx 0-602 eh0
Åij yVd dj >wy jgh FkhA fnukad 20&06&2006
dks mDr dkyksuh ds ikdZ esa [ksyrs le; nksigj
yxHkx 12-30 cts dkyksuh ds cPpksa dh xsan ckmUMah
ds ikj pyh x;h ftls ykus ds fy, dkyksuh ds Hkou
la0 22 fuoklh Jh fot; dqekj dk iq= f'kozka'kq
ckmUMah ij p<+k vkSj Åij tk jgh 11ds0lh0 ykbu
ds lEidZ esa vk x;k rFkk fo|qr Li'kZ?kkr ls
nq?kZVukxzLr gks x;k ,oe~ ------- fodykax gks x;kA
if'ekapy fo|qr forj.k fuxe fy0 ds lEcfU/kr
vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk nq?kZVuk dks laKku esa ugha fy;k x;k
vfirq ykbu ds e/; ckmUMah ds lehi ,d iksy
yxkdj ykbu dks Å¡pk dj fn;k x;k gSA ;g nq?kZVuk
fuxe ds lfEcU/kr mi[k.M }kjk viuh ykbuksa dks
fu;ekuqlkj vuqjf{kr u fd;s tkus ,oe~ Hkk0fo0fu0
1956 ds fu;e 77 1⁄421⁄2] fu;e 90 1⁄411⁄2] fu;e 91 1⁄411⁄2 ds
mya?ku ds dkj.k =qfViw.kZ vf/k"Bkiu ls ?kfVr gqbZ
ftlds fy, mi[k.M vf/kdkjh Jh jktho dqekj xqIrk
,oe~ voj vfHk;Urk 1⁄4orZeku esa e`rd1⁄2 rFkk ykbu eSu
Jh jkeflag ftEesnkj gSaA nq?kZVuk dh fof/kor lwpuk u
nsdj rFkk foLr`r fjiksVZ u Hkst dj fu;e 44d dk
mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA lEcfU/kr ykbu esa fu;e 29]
fu;e 501⁄411⁄2 1⁄4ch1⁄2] fu;e 90 1⁄411⁄2 ,oe~ fu;e 91 1⁄411⁄2 ds
vUrxZr =qfV;ksa ds fuokj.k gsrq fu;e 5 1⁄441⁄2 ds vkns'k
tkjh dj fn;s x;s gSa rFkk fu;e ---- ds vUrZxr
dk;Zokgh djus gsrq funsZf'kr Hkh fd;k x;k gSAß

18. The aforesaid facts therefore leave
no room for doubt, that paragraph 10 of the
counter affidavit, which is alleged to have
been sworn on the basis of record, is clearly
a false averment and is contrary to the
entire
record
of
the
respondents
themselves. We deprecate the act of the
concerned official who had sworn the
affidavit in spite of the fact that when the
counter affidavit was being filed, the report
was already a part of the writ petition.
There is no denial that Annexure 13 to the
writ petition is not the report of the
respondents. In such circumstances, the
only possible and prudent conclusion that
can be arrived at and the only inference,
which can be drawn is that there is no
dispute about the fact that the negligence
was entirely attributable to the employees
of the respondent-corporation and there is
no contributory negligence on the part of
the petitioner. This fact having been
established on the basis of record itself as
contained in the report of the Electrical
Inspector,
which
has
nowhere
been
disputed by the respondents, therefore, does
not give rise to any disputed question of
fact which may be required to be gone into
after leading any evidence for which a suit
may have to be filed.

19. We, therefore, on the facts of the
present case and for the reasons stated
herein above reject the argument of the
learned counsel for the respondents that the
petitioner has to file a suit for award of
damages
and
compensation.
We
are
supported in our aforesaid conclusion by
the judgments cited on behalf of the
petitioner in the case of Yash Pal Singh
(Minor) and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & 5
Ors. 2017 (6) AllLJ 49, which in tern
refers to various Supreme Court decisions
and rules that a writ petition would be
clearly maintainable in such circumstances
for award of compensation. We therefore,
find that there is a later decision of a
Division Bench which categorically and
exhaustively deals with such a situation
and, therefore, as against the Division
Bench judgment in the case of Karan
Singh & Anr.(supra), Chokhey Lal
(supra) and that of Neetu Devi (supra) we
hold that in such a situation, where facts are
nowhere disputed relating to the factum of
accident, a writ petition can be entertained
following the ratio of the judgment in the
case of Yash Pal Singh (Minor) & Anr.
(supra) as well as the judgment of the
learned Single Judge in the case of
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Executive
Engineer,
Electricity
Distribution Division-II Vs. Chairman,
Permanent Lok Adalat & 4 Ors. in Writ
Petition under Articel 227 No. 4068 of
2015 decided on 17th September, 2015.
We accordingly agree and approve of the
said decisions and hold that in such a
situation,
a
writ
petition
would
be
maintainable.

20. Having crossed the said hurdle, it
is apparent that the argument on behalf of
the respondents on the said count has to be
rejected namely the maintainability of the
writ petition on there being no dispute
about the factum of the accident.

21. The next issue, which remains for
adjudication, is about the award of
maximum compensation as Shri Nripendra
Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents
contends that the Department is bound by
the circular dated 19.04.2006. For this also
we may refer to the same decisions that
have been relied by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Corporation may have to
be guided by its own circular and its
authorities may have to adhere to the same,
but when it comes to the matter of just and
fair compensation, then the same cannot be
binding on the Courts which can assess the
same and proceed to award adequate
compensation as has been held in the
decision referred to in the case of Yash Pal
Singh (Minor) & Anr. (supra) and the
case itself.

22. Coming to the last part of the
argument, which is in relation to the quantum
of compensation, it is on record that the
petitioner is the only child of his parents. His
permanent disability is no where disputed and
therefore, he has to be dependent life long on
an income that may be sufficient to make his
decent survival possible.

23. Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned
counsel for the respondent-Corporation has
invited the attention of the Court to the
contents of the supplementary affidavit filed
by the petitioner to contend that the petitioner
having acquired the qualification of Masters
in Computer Application, has indicated his
own achievements and his current income.
He submits that not only this, his future
capabilities also cannot be ruled out and in
such circumstances, keeping in view the
current income of the petitioner, as disclosed
in the said affidavit, he will be able to
successfully meet the day-to-day expenses as
well as expenses that are required for his
survival.

24. We have perused the said affidavit
and what we find therefrom is that on
account of such disability having been
suffered by the petitioner at the age of 14
years, his entire educational career was
obstructed to the extent that he was unable
to pursue better and higher studies of which
he was capable of keeping in view the fact
that the petitioner has acquired the
qualification of Masters in Computer
Application with Honours in First Division
from the Integral University at Lucknow.
Thus, the capability of the petitioner cannot
be doubted and therefore, a presumption
can be raised about his future career having
been marred on account of the accident. It
has also been highlighted that the parents
have also lost income, inasmuch as, it was
the income of the mother of the petitioner,
who was running coaching classes and
home tuition had to devote all her time with
the petitioner and her permanent income
was blocked substantially. He then submits
that the petitioner's father is in a precarious
health condition.

25. The following chart with
supporting material has been given in
3 All. Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
645
respect of the medical expenses of the
petitioner:

Limbs
Expenses
(Otto Bock)
Rs.8,30,000/-
Hospital
Bills
(approx.)
(Apollo
Hospital)
RS.9,89,553/-
Hospital
Bill
(Sir
Ganga
Ram
Hospital)
Rs.4,63,769/-
Physiotherapy
(approx.)(Rs.200 per
day, 4 years)
Rs.2,00,000/-
Other Miscellaneous
Charges
Rs.65,000/-
Total
Rs.25,49,003/-

26. Not only this. it has been
indicated that if the petitioner has to
undergo plastic surgery, he would require
an approximate amount of Rs.12 lacks in
addition to the aforesaid expenses for
meeting his medical expenses.

27. Lastly, he comes up with a plea
that he had to take loans in order to meet
the
expenses
including
his
medical
expenses, which were to the tune of Rs.4
lacks, Rs.4.5 lacks and Rs.2.20 lacks. This
along with interest has accumulated to
Rs.15 lacks.

28. Over and above, the expenses of
engaging a Helper and incurring expenses
on conveyance have also been stated in the
supplementary affidavit.

29.

We
have
considered
the
submissions raised and in order to construe
as to what should be an adequate, just and
fair compensation, we may refer to the
procedure that can be safely followed in
such cases where the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Yash Pal Singh
(Minor) & Anr. (supra) has evolved a
method of calculation after relying on a
couple of decisions of the Apex Court in
paragraph 59 to 66 of the said judgment
that is extracted herein under :

59. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has relied upon the judgment of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ
Petition No. 14046 of 2012 (O&M) -
Raman v. State of Haryana decided on
02.07.2017
and
argued
to
pay
the
compensation in light of the above
judgment. He has further relied upon
another judgment i.e. Naval Kishore
Kumar v. State of Himanchal Pradesh
reported in in which approximately 1.25
Crores has been awarded to the petitioner
in the similar matter. State of Himanchal
Pradesh had preferred Civil Appeal No.
1339 of 2017 (State of Himanchal Pradesh
v. Nawal Kishore) in which Hon'ble the
Apex Court reduced the amount of
compensation from Rs. 1.25 Crores to Rs.
90 lakhs considering the amount to be on
higher side.

60. We have gone through the relevant
provisions
regarding
assessment
of
compensation to be paid to the injured in
the case of accident or electrocution in
similar matters. As discussed, there are two
formulas (1) Marginal Propensity to Save
(MPS) and (2) Marginal Propensity to
Consume (MPC). Meaning thereby, we can
assess the income of the injured in case he
is employed after a reasonable majority
age and gain something in future and
second formula relates to the method of
calculation regarding minimum amount
required to be expended to protect the life
of the injured. Spending multiplier (also
known as fiscal multiplier or simply the
multiplier) represents the multiple by which
GDP increases or decreases in response to
an increase and decrease in government
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expenditures and investment. It is the
reciprocal of the marginal propensity to
save (MPS). Higher the MPS, lower the
multiplier, and lower the MPS, higher the
multiplier. The spending multiplier is
closely related to the multiplier effect.
Assume that households consume 80% of
any increase in their income and that the
government increases its expenditure by
$20 billion. Any government expenditure is
actually income of households in the form
of wages, interest, rent and profit. Since
MPC is 0.8, households will consume $16
billion of the increased income (=0.8 × $20
billion). The $16 billion increase in
consumption will trigger second round of
increase in incomes (for people associated
with production of the consumed products
and services) which in turn will trigger
second round of consumption amounting to
$12.8 billion (=0.8 × 0.8 × $20 billion),
and so on. The resulting effect is that the
GDP increases by a multiple of initial
increase in government expenditures. This
multiple is the spending multiplier. A
decrease
in
government
expenditures
decreases GDP by a multiple in the same
fashion.

61. Where, MPS stands for marginal
propensity to save which is the percentage
of
any
addition
in
income
which
households are going to save and MPC
stands for marginal propensity to consume
and it is the percentage of any addition in
income which households are expected to
consume.

62. By definition, MPS + MPC = 1
and MPS = 1 - MPC.

63. We are of the view that assessment
in the light of income is a presumptive
method and if it is taken into account then
from minimum wages to highest paid salary
may be available and it would be very
difficult to assess at this juncture. The
calculation in the light of minimum
expenditure
to
be
incurred
on
the
maintenance of the life of the petitioners is
a reasonable amount (minimum required in
our view) is about Rs. 10,000/- per month
and calculating the annual expenditure, it
comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- per year and
expectancy of life minimum further 50
years. The multiplier for calculation of
compensation to be awarded to the
petitioners would be 10,000 × 12 × 50 =
60,00,000/- each.

64. The petitioners are also entitled to
standard damages towards the following
heads--

I. Towards loss of companionship, life
amenities and loss of pleasure.

II. Pain and suffering including mental
distress,
trauma,
discomfort
and
inconvenience.

III.
Expenditure
to
be
incurred
towards the attendant/nursing expenses.

IV. Expenditure to be incurred for
securing
artificial/robotic
limbs
and
medical expenses.

65. Since the power corporation is
working as an agent of the State of U.P. for
providing electricity, we are of the view
that the State of U.P. is jointly and
severally
liable
for
payment
of
compensation
and
for
taking
safety
measures.
It
is
also
necessary
in
furtherance of the object to provide just
compensation
and
take
security
measurements by the instrumentalities of
the State.

66. In light of the above submissions
and keeping in view the totality of the
circumstances and balance to be struck
between just compensation and other
compensations, we are of the view that
beside payment of a reasonable monetary
compensation in the form of damages and
other
ancillaries,
incidental
matters,
certain directions may also be given to the
respondents regarding maintenance and
3 All. Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
647
safety measurements to be taken by the
electricity department either to raise the
height of the offending transmission line
above the abadi for by means of any safety
measurement, to make the high tension line
safe and render them electrically harmless
and take them beyond the reach of man and
kids. We are of the view that following
directions would sub-serve the purpose--

i. On the principle of joint and several
liability, the respondents are jointly and
severally
liable
for
payment
of
compensation awarded in this petition.

ii. To secure the financial and
monetary future of the minors Yash Pal
Singh and Ankit Kumar Yadav, it is
directed that the respondent U.P. Power
Corporation Limited would pay 60 lakhs
compensation immediately for loss of
enjoyment of life, trauma suffered and to
act as a guard against neglect and
dependence on others, loss of future
employability and the agony of future, paid
and mental shock 50% of this amount will
be deposited in a fixed deposit account in
the name of the petitioners separately
under joint guardianship of the parents
with the petitioners (separately) in a
nationalized bank preferably State Bank of
India, Lucknow. The amount is directed to
be deposited within two months from the
receipt of certified copy of this order failing
which the amount will carry 6% simple
interest per annum till deposit in the bank.
The amount awarded under this head will
be available to the petitioners on attaining
the age of majority.

iii.
To
meet
out
the
running
expenditure
at
present
and
daily
expenses/attendant or family help or any
labour, 50% of this amount for each
petitioner is required to be invested in a
nationalized bank, State Bank of India,
Lucknow, to earn interest on long term
fixed deposit. The interest so earned per
month on this fixed deposit amount shall
be credited to the Saving Bank Accounts
of
the
petitioners
with
natural
guardianship and credited to these
accounts. The amount of interest so
accrued against these fixed deposits shall
automatically be transferred in the
Saving Bank Accounts of the petitioners
which are to be opened in the same
branch in the name of the petitioners
operated jointly by the parents and be
paid on monthly basis to be used and
expended for the care of the petitioners
by the parents for educational expenses,
nutritious food, cost of the attendants.
Respondents are directed to pay this
amount within two months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order
failing which the amount will carry 6%
per annum simple interest till it is
deposited in the bank accounts.

iv.
The
Chairman/Managing
Director
of
the
Department,
with
consultation
and
assistance
of
the
Director General of Health Services,
U.P., Lucknow, may also consider the
case for immediate medical treatment of
the minor petitioners to provide them
artificial/robotic limb.

v. Respondents are directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four
lakhs) immediately within two months to
the natural guardians of each of the
petitioners for trauma, mental shock,
pain and agony caused to them.

vi. Each petitioner is entitled to have
cost of litigation quantified to Rs.
50,000/- (fifty thousands) payable to the
guardians of the petitioners.

vii. It would be better to provide that
since the Court has awarded a reasonable
monetary compensation on the principles of
both strict and vicarious liability and
tortuous liability based on negligence, it is
directed that no civil suit would lie
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claiming
further
compensation
with
regards to this incident in future in any
Court.

viii. Respondents are directed to
immediately make some safety measures
regarding high tension lines transmitting
above or near abadi to make it safe and
render them electrically harmless to
habitation and take them beyond the reach
of man below or to device such other
alternatives so as to bypass the colony like
the present abadi land in the State of U.P.
For the purpose, the Managing Director of
the electricity department by constituting a
team
of
experts,
engineers
of
the
department may obtain a report and take
such remedial measures which are required
to meet out and avoid such type of
electrocution.

ix. The entitlement of compensation as
provided
above
is
individual
(per
petitioner) and both the petitioners are
entitled
for
above
compensation
separately."

30. In the present case, the first thing
that has to be addressed to is that the
petitioner has received only Rs.50,000/-
way back in the year 2008. The accident
took place in the year 2006 when he was 14
years of age and was pursuing his
educational career. In the past 12 years, by
the time, this writ petition has been taken
up for hearing, the petitioner has pursued
his educational career and after having
successfully acquired the degree of Master
of Computer Application has also been
engaged himself in private job. The
security of such jobs, is amenable to the
choice of the employer and in the aforesaid
background, since the date of the accident
up to the date when he started earning in
2013, it is obvious that the petitioner was
not earning in those 7 years.