Civil Writ No. 16663 of 2010 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Civil Writ No. 16663 of 2010 Date of decision: May 12,2011 Shiksha Devi ..Petitioner. Versus Managing Director, HVPN and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. S.S.Pattar, Sr. DAG,Haryana for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 ... Ranjit Singh,J(Oral) The son of the petitioner has expired due to electrocution on 21.6.2010. This happened while he was working on the roof top of house of Karnail Singh. The petitioner was trapped from the roof top of house as High tension wire was not tightened by the respondents. In fact representations were given for shifting the High tension wire. Reference is made to such representations and these have been placed on record. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of compensation by way of public law remedy. Though, initially, the respondents had contested the claim of the petitioner in the reply filed but now, the concerned Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVNL,Yamuna Nagar has considered the issue and on the asking of the court has made some calculation as to how much compensation is to be paid. An inquiry has also been held by the Civil Writ No. 16663 of 2010 2 department. The wire which was crossing over the house has also been shifted. The respondents though had made an attempt to side track the responsibility but I am of the view that the respondent cannot escape responsibility for the tragedy. Respondents had failed to take timely action. To assess compensation, a method under Motor Vehicle Act has been generally follows. The petitioner was working as a Mason and his income assessed has undisputedly been worked out to be ` 3000/- P.M. Taking into account the dependency, his monthly income can be roughly taken as ` 2000/- P.M. and considering his age, a sum of ` 3,80,000/- approximately may work out as compensation. The Executive Engineer has also carried out calculations on the basis of provisions contained in the Workman's Compensation Act and according to that the compensation works out to be ` 3,29,000/-. In my view, the payment of ` 3,50,000/- in lumsum would be adequate compensation and the same is allowed to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly allowed with direction to pay compensation of `3,50,000/-. Let the amount be deposited/paid to the petitioner within a period of one month. May 12,2011 (RANJIT SINGH) nk JUDGE