# Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Division & Ors v. Madan Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 754
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-04-25
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sub-divisional-officer-electricity-division-ors-v-madan-singh-ors-43685
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Nripendra Mishra

Background of the case

This case arises from a writ petition filed by Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited challenging the award
of Rs. 5,78,000/- passed on 1.3.2016 by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA). The award pertained to
compensation for the death of Danveer Singh (aged 18) and injuries to his brother Shiv Shanker Singh, who
were electrocuted after they came into contact with a snapped 11 KVA live electric line lying in a field (Paras
2-4).

Findings of the Permanent Lok Adalat

The PLA held that it had jurisdiction under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, since electricity
distribution is a public utility service (Para 5). This finding was not challenged before the High Court.

Based on the administrative inquiry report, case diary, panchayatnama, and post-mortem report, the PLA
concluded that the death was caused due to electrocution resulting from the negligence of the electricity
department (Paras 6-7). Though the petition questioned this finding, the petitioners did not press the
argument during hearing.

With respect to compensation, the PLA assumed a notional income of Rs. 6,000 per month, considering the
deceased had passed Class XII and was pursuing ITI. After deducting 50% for personal expenses, and
applying a multiplier of 16, the PLA awarded a total of Rs. 5,76,000/-, plus Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral
expenses, totalling Rs. 5,78,000/- (Paras 8-11).

Hon'ble High Court's Analysis

The High Court reiterated the principle of restitutio in integrum, stating that compensation in tort aims to
restore the dependents to the financial position they would have been in if the wrongful act had not occurred
(Para 12). Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasised the duty to award just and
reasonable compensation, balancing inflated demands and unjustly low amounts (Paras 13-15).
4 All. Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Division & Ors. Vs Madan Singh & Ors.

755
The Court upheld the PLA's estimation of income at Rs. 200/day, noting that the Supreme Court has
recognised progressive increases in notional income over the years due to inflation. Given that Rs. 100/day
was approved for a 2004 accident, Rs. 200/day for 2014 was reasonable (Paras 16-18).

Multiplier and Compensation Assessment

The High Court noted that the PLA applied the incorrect multiplier. As per Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari, a
person aged 15-25 years attracts multiplier 18, not 16 (Para 19). Hence, compensation was in fact lower
than what was legally appropriate.

Similarly, funeral expenses of only Rs. 2,000/- were far below the minimum Rs. 25,000/- mandated in Rajesh
v. Rajbir Singh (Para 20).

The Court also relied on Raman v. UHBVN, which applied medical negligence compensation principles to
electrocution cases, recognising statutory negligence and permitting deviation from the strict multiplier
method (Paras 21-23).

Department's Failure to Address Electrocution Cases

The Court expressed concern over the electricity department's repeated failure to settle genuine electrocution
cases, despite past directions in Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-II v. Chairman PLA calling
for creation of a fair and reasonable compensation policy. Lack of compliance has increased litigation
unnecessarily (Paras 24-26).

Final Decision

The High Court found no merit in the petitioners' argument that the compensation was excessive. Instead, it
held the award to be modest and justified (Para 23, 27). The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.
50,000/-, directing payment of the entire compensation within one month, failing which interest at 14% per
annum will apply (Para 27).

List of Case Laws Cited

## Text

754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No.- 16541 Of 2016

Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Division & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Madan Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Nripendra Mishra

Background of the case

This case arises from a writ petition filed by Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited challenging the award
of Rs. 5,78,000/- passed on 1.3.2016 by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA). The award pertained to
compensation for the death of Danveer Singh (aged 18) and injuries to his brother Shiv Shanker Singh, who
were electrocuted after they came into contact with a snapped 11 KVA live electric line lying in a field (Paras
2-4).

Findings of the Permanent Lok Adalat

The PLA held that it had jurisdiction under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, since electricity
distribution is a public utility service (Para 5). This finding was not challenged before the High Court.

Based on the administrative inquiry report, case diary, panchayatnama, and post-mortem report, the PLA
concluded that the death was caused due to electrocution resulting from the negligence of the electricity
department (Paras 6-7). Though the petition questioned this finding, the petitioners did not press the
argument during hearing.

With respect to compensation, the PLA assumed a notional income of Rs. 6,000 per month, considering the
deceased had passed Class XII and was pursuing ITI. After deducting 50% for personal expenses, and
applying a multiplier of 16, the PLA awarded a total of Rs. 5,76,000/-, plus Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral
expenses, totalling Rs. 5,78,000/- (Paras 8-11).

Hon'ble High Court's Analysis

The High Court reiterated the principle of restitutio in integrum, stating that compensation in tort aims to
restore the dependents to the financial position they would have been in if the wrongful act had not occurred
(Para 12). Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasised the duty to award just and
reasonable compensation, balancing inflated demands and unjustly low amounts (Paras 13-15).
4 All. Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Division & Ors. Vs Madan Singh & Ors.

755
The Court upheld the PLA's estimation of income at Rs. 200/day, noting that the Supreme Court has
recognised progressive increases in notional income over the years due to inflation. Given that Rs. 100/day
was approved for a 2004 accident, Rs. 200/day for 2014 was reasonable (Paras 16-18).

Multiplier and Compensation Assessment

The High Court noted that the PLA applied the incorrect multiplier. As per Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari, a
person aged 15-25 years attracts multiplier 18, not 16 (Para 19). Hence, compensation was in fact lower
than what was legally appropriate.

Similarly, funeral expenses of only Rs. 2,000/- were far below the minimum Rs. 25,000/- mandated in Rajesh
v. Rajbir Singh (Para 20).

The Court also relied on Raman v. UHBVN, which applied medical negligence compensation principles to
electrocution cases, recognising statutory negligence and permitting deviation from the strict multiplier
method (Paras 21-23).

Department's Failure to Address Electrocution Cases

The Court expressed concern over the electricity department's repeated failure to settle genuine electrocution
cases, despite past directions in Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-II v. Chairman PLA calling
for creation of a fair and reasonable compensation policy. Lack of compliance has increased litigation
unnecessarily (Paras 24-26).

Final Decision

The High Court found no merit in the petitioners' argument that the compensation was excessive. Instead, it
held the award to be modest and justified (Para 23, 27). The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.
50,000/-, directing payment of the entire compensation within one month, failing which interest at 14% per
annum will apply (Para 27).

List of Case Laws Cited

1. Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 2 SCC 688

2. Laxmi Devi v. Mohd. Tabbar, (2008) 12 SCC 165

3. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121

4. Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65

5. Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54

6. Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 15 SCC 1

7. Dr. Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha, (2014) 1 SCC 384

8. Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-II v. Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat, 2015 (10) ADJ 498

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and its officials have approached this
Court challenging an order dated 1.3.2016 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat awarding
compensation of Rs.5,78,000/- to the first and second respondents.

2. The claimants are parents of Danveer Singh and Shiv Shanker Singh. On 16.6.2014 at
6.30 a.m., both their aforesaid sons, while passing through the field of one Jagat Singh of Village
Sarawa, came in contact with live 11 KVA electricity line which was lying snapped on the ground.
According to the claimants, as a result of electrocution, Danveer Singh died on the spot, whereas
their other son Shiv Shanker Singh sustained injuries. The claimants approached the Permanent
Lok Adalat for award of compensation in respect of death of Danveer Singh and wherein, the
impugned award has been passed. The Permanent Lok Adalat has decided issue no.1 relating to its
jurisdiction to adjudicate such claim in favour of the claimants. The Permanent Lok Adalat held
that the Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is engaged in distribution and supply of
electricity. Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, a Permanent Lok Adalat is invested
with the power and jurisdiction to conduct conciliation proceedings and in case of failure, to decide
the dispute on merits in respect of public utility services, which include, interalia, the supply of
power, light or water to the public by any establishment. A dispute raising a claim for
compensation alleging negligence on part of the Distribution Company in maintenance of the
electricity lines meant for supply of power is thus a dispute coming under its jurisdiction. The
aforesaid finding has not been challenged before this Court.

3. The second issue was whether the accident occurred as a result of the deceased coming
into contact with live 11 KVA electricity line or not. Before the Tribunal, paper no.8/3 was a report
of an administrative inquiry conducted by the department itself, in which it was found that the
accident occurred as a result of electrocution and the deceased died on the spot. Paper no.10/4, the
Panchayatnama and paper no.10/6, the case diary established the occurrence of the incident on
16.6.2014. Paper no.10, the post mortem report established that the death occurred as a result of
electrocution. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded by holding that the accident occurred on account
of the deceased coming into contact with live 11 KVA electricity line, which was lying snapped in
the field. The Tribunal found negligence on part of the department in maintaining the supply line in
accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act and the Rules. The aforesaid finding, although
is sought to be questioned in the writ petition, but at the time of hearing, Sri Nripendra Mishra,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners did not press this plea.

4. The third issue decided by the Tribunal is regarding the compensation to be paid to the
claimants. The Tribunal held that the deceased was a young man aged about 18 years. At the time
of accident, he had just passed Standard XII. Although, the claimants alleged that after completing
his studies, he had qualified I.T.I entrance examination, and would have easily earned Rs.20000/-
per month, but the Tribunal assumed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month.
The Tribunal held that even an agricultural labourer, in these days earns Rs.200/- per day and thus,
calculated his monthly income was assumed as Rs.6000/- per month and annual income as
Rs.72,000/-. Out of it, 50% was deducted being the sum, which the deceased would have spent on
his own self. The Tribunal further held that the principles laid down in the motor accident claim
4 All. Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Division & Ors. Vs Madan Singh & Ors.

757
cases are to be applied. The age of the deceased being 18 years, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier
of 16 and thus calculated the compensation as Rs.5,76,000/-. A sum of Rs.2000/- was added as
funeral expenses, thus totaling Rs.5,78,000/-. The amount awarded as compensation has been
assailed by contending that in the absence of any evidence on record regarding annual income of
the deceased, the Tribunal erred in assuming his monthly income as Rs.6000/- per month. It is
urged that the compensation awarded is excessive.

5. The amount of compensation is in the realm of law of torts. It is based on the principle of
restitutio in integrum. The principle embodies the doctrine that the person entitled to damages
should get such sum of money which would put him (his dependents) in the same position as he
(they) would have been if wrong had not taken place.

6. In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka2 the Supreme
Court held that a compensation which is just and reasonable should be awarded. A balance has to
be struck between inflated claim and adequate compensation. It was observed thus:-

 "We must emphasise that the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and
unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that
nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a
correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the court must not be chary of awarding adequate
compensation. The 'adequate compensation' that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of
thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties
concerned."

(emphasis supplied)

7. The Supreme Court has applied the principles laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act
in upholding grant of compensation in cases of fatal accidents or disabilities, even in cases not
governed by the said Act. The second schedule to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 can thus serve as a
guiding principle for determining the compensation.

8. Concededly, the deceased was a minor aged about 18 years at the time of accident. The
case of the claimants was that he had qualified I.T.I examination and had a bright future. In cases
where the deceased is a minor, the compensation is to be calculated on the basis of notional
income. The second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates a notional income of Rs.15,000/-
per annum. In the case of Laxmi Devi and others Vs. Mohd. Tabbar3 the Supreme Court
approved fixation of notional income of deceased aged about 35 years as Rs.36,000/- per annum by
assuming that even unskilled labourer can easily earn Rs.100 per day. The High Court had refused
to rely on the notional income of Rs.15000/- per annum stipulated in the second schedule on the
reasoning that such amount was prescribed in the year 1994, whereas the accident occurred in the
year 2004 and thus, keeping in mind the rate of inflation, the notional income was assumed as
Rs.36,000/- per annum. Out of the said amount 1/3rd was deducted as the amount that the deceased
would have spent on himself, thus determining the claimants dependency at Rs.24,000/ per annum.
A multiplier of 14 was employed and accordingly, the amount of compensation was calculated as
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.3,36,000/- (24,000/- x 14). To the said amount, compensation by way of funeral expenses, loss
of consortium and loss of estate was added, thus a total sum of Rs.3,45,000/- was held to be just
and reasonable compensation.

9. In the instant case, the accident occurred on 16.6.2014. The deceased at the time of his
death had passed Standard XII and is alleged to have qualified I.T.I. entrance examination. The
Tribunal has assessed his notional income as Rs.200 per day. This in no circumstance can be held
to be on higher side keeping in mind the fact that the Supreme Court approved the notional income
of Rs.100/- per day in case of an accident that occurred in the year 2004. Even on a very modest
estimation, keeping the rate of inflation since the year 2004 in mind, the estimation of income of
Rs.200/- per day in the year 2014 was fully justified.

10. This Court further notices that the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16 which itself is
on the lower side. In Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
the table relating to multiplier as given in paragraph 40, provides for a multiplier of 18 in case the
age of the deceased is between 15 to 25 years. The same has been approved in a later decision of
the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another (vide para
43.1). Thus, infact, the proper multiplier which was attracted to the facts of the case is 18. The
Court, therefore, finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is rather on a lower side.

11. In Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others the Supreme Court has held that
keeping in mind the price index, a sum of Rs.25,000/- at least should be awarded as funeral
expenses, whereas in the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- only.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Raman Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited has held that in case of electrocution the principles laid down for award of compensation in
cases of medical negligence would hold good. In that case, the Supreme Court relied on the
judgment in the case of Dr. Balram Prasad Vs. Kunal Saha and others, wherein the Supreme
Court had deviated from the multiplier method, in awarding a much higher compensation
considered to be just and reasonable in a case of medical negligence. The observations made by the
Supreme Court in case of Raman (Supra) are as under:-

 "17. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has awarded compensation keeping all
these aspects of the matter and has applied the guiding principle of multiplier method after
adverting to the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr for the purpose
of computation of just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant which method
should not have been applied to the case on hand, particularly, having regard to the statutory
negligence on the part of the respondents in not providing the safety measures to see that live
electric wires should not fall on the roof of the building by strictly following the Rules to protect the
lives of the public in the residential area. This Court in the case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Kunal
Saha, has deviated from following the multiplier method to award just and reasonable
compensation in favour of the claimant in a medical negligence case. The same principle will hold
good in the case on hand too. The following case law is followed by this Court in the above
4 All. Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Division & Ors. Vs Madan Singh & Ors.

759
referred case, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein to award just and reasonable
compensation in favour of the appellant.

 68. ........ three-Judges Bench decision of this Court in Indian Medical Assn. v. V.P.
Shantha, wherein this Court has categorically disagreed on this specific point in another case
wherein "medical negligence" was involved. In the said decision, it has been held at para 53 that to
deny a legitimate claim or to restrict arbitrarily the size of an award would amount to substantial
injustice to the claimant."

(emphasis supplied)

13. If these factors are kept in mind, this Court notices that the award of the compensation
of Rs.5,78,000/- on account of death of a young man aged about 18 years coming into contact with
live 11 KVA electric wire on account of negligence of the petitioners, was infact a very modest
sum.

14. In Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-II Vs. Chairman
Permanent Lok Adalat and 4 others this Court noted that there was a circular issued by the
department for award of Rs.1 lakh as compensation in case of death of a person on account
of electrocution. In that case also a death of 30 years old man occurred as a result of
electrocution. The Permanent Lok Adalat awarded Rs.2,50,000/- in addition to Rs.50,000/-
paid by the department itself to the claimants.The Court noted with concern the fact that U.P.
Power Corporation Ltd., which is an instrumentality of State, is shirking from its
constitutional obligation and social responsibility in settling such matters outside the Court.
The Permanent Lok Adalat even in the instant case has recorded a specific finding that all
efforts to settle the dispute by amicable settlement had failed, compelling it to proceed to
decide the matter on merits. The Court in that case directed the Principal Secretary, Energy
as well as Chairman of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and the Managing Directors of all Four
Distribution Companies to consider issuing proper guidelines providing for payment of fair
and reasonable compensation in case of death, fatal accident or injuries, in supersession of
the existing circular, so that the courts are not burdened with unnecessary litigation. It seems
that no heed was paid to the aforesaid advice of the Court leading to the instant case coming
before this Court, which in the opinion of the Court, should have been settled outside the
Court.

15. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is unable to find any force in the
contention of the petitioners that the compensation awarded is excessive. On the other hand,
as noted above, the instant litigation could have been well avoided. In the facts and
circumstances aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid
by the petitioners to the claimants alongwith compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok
Adalat for forcing the claimants to indulge in uncalled for and avoidable litigation. The
entire amount, alongwith uptodate interest shall be paid to the claimants within one month,
failing which the interest shall become payable at the rate of 14% per annum for the
subsequent period.
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.- 22130 Of 2015

Guddu @ Parvej ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Umesh Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986-Ss. 2(b)(iv), 3-Scheduled
offences-Gambling Act offences- Invocation of Gangsters Act on basis of a single case - Permissibility.
Held, offences under Public Gambling Act fall within the Schedule read with S. 2(b)(iv) of the 1986 ActHence, even a single offence under the Gambling Act may constitute the foundation for invoking the
Gangsters Act- Absence of multiple or repetitive offences does not bar application of the Act. (para7)

Criminal Law - Gangsters Act - When FIR under the Act is not liable to be quashed - Requirement of
"multiple acts" - Interpretation of "singular includes plural" -argument that the Act cannot be invoked
unless multiple similar offences exist, rejected-Following Rinku @ Hukku v. State of U.P., singular includes
plural, and therefore even one scheduled offence may suffice to form "activity" of a gangster.(Para 7)

Invoking Gangsters Act-on basis of a Gambling Act case -legally sustainable - No ground for interference
with FIR under S. 3 of the Act. Petition dismissed with liberty to apply for bail.(Para 4)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Article 226 of Constitution of India- Writ jurisdiction - Quashing of
FIR - When not permissible-Where FIR discloses commission of a scheduled offence and invocation of
special statute is supported by binding precedent- Court will not quash FIR at pre-investigation stage-
Proper remedy for accused is to seek bail, not quashing.

Precedents - Coordinate Bench decisions - Later Bench laying down correct law to prevail - Interim
orders not binding upon the court. (Para5,6)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

Vijay Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. andothers, 2010(71) ACC 864