CWP No.14560 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.14560 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.01.2011 **** Manwati & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. JS Bhatti, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners are the unfortunate wife and three minor children of late Sita Ram who was a jhuggi dweller near Khokha Market, Phase-I, SAS Nagar Mohali. The undisputed facts are that due to sufferance of electric shock on felling down of 11KV electric wire both Sita Ram and his another minor son Rajesh who were inside the jhuggi died at the spot. Late Sita Ram used to work as a Painter with a government contractor. Having lost their only CWP No.14560 of 2009.doc - 2 – source of livelihood that the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to pay them compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum. (2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit refuting the petitioners’ claim solely on the plea that the jhuggi constructed by late Sita Ram was ‘unauthorised’. The State Government’s reply explains that the cause of incident was investigated and action has been taken against the supplier who was responsible for distribution of power and who allegedly violated Rule 29 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. In other words, the fact that the accident was caused due to negligence of an agent of the respondents is not in dispute. (3). The facts on record would reveal that the deceased Sita Ram was a labourer aged about 40 years and has left behind three minor children, namely, petitioners No.2,3&4 who are 13, 9 & 3 years old, respectively. They are left with no other source of sustenance as petitioner No.1 - wife of late Sita Ram is also a house-wife. CWP No.14560 of 2009.doc - 3 – (4). It is true that for the determination of actual amount of compensation on the basis of factors like life expectancy of the deceased, his earnings and the nature of dependency of the petitioners etc. the petitioners need to and are entitled to approach a forum like the Civil Court. However, keeping in view the fact that such a process is likely to take some reasonable time to resolve the factual issues and the petitioners at this stage are in dire need of entitled help, it would be in the fitness of things that this Court invokes its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and grant some ad hoc compensation to the petitioners without prejudice to their legal rights before the Civil Court/other appropriate forum. (5). In somewhat similar circumstances where a person was electrocuted due to felling of electric cable and who had left behind his age-old parents, wife and two minor children, a Division Bench of this Court in Anguri Devi & Ors. v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., 2002(2) CCC 278 (P&H) held as follows:- CWP No.14560 of 2009.doc - 4 – “…..In the present case, a fact which stares us in the face is that Ram Chander, the sole bread winner, has died. The widow and minor children as also the aged parents have nothing to fall back upon. It appears that they do not have any source to sustain themselves. In this situation, it would be difficult for them to approach the Civil Court for recovery of damages. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, we think it appropriate to award an ad hoc compensation of Rs.1,50.000. This shall be paid to the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the remaining claim, if any, the petitioners shall be entitled to seek their remedy before the Civil Court. Since the petitioners are being relegated to the remedy before the Civil Court at the instance of the respondent itself, it is clarified that in case a suit is filed within two months from today, they will not raise the plea of limitation. We are making this observation in view of the fact that the writ petition has remained pending in this Court from April, 1999 till today…..” (6). Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances and the price wholesale index as well as the inflation rate as the guiding factors to determine the minimum and ad hoc amount of compensation, I deem it appropriate to direct payment of ad hoc compensation of Rs.3 lacs to the petitioners out of which Rs.1.50 lacs shall be paid to petitioner No.1 whereas the remaining amount of CWP No.14560 of 2009.doc - 5 – Rs.1.50 lacs i.e. Rs.50,000/- each shall be deposited in Fixed Deposits in a Nationalised Bank in the names of petitioners No.2 to 4 till they attain the age of majority and their mother, namely, petitioner No.1, being the natural guardian shall be entitled to draw monthly interest thereupon. The compensation amount shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order without prejudice to their right to seek determination of the actual amount of compensation before an appropriate forum to which they are entitled to in law. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 12.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge