CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17037 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 06 ,2011 Santosh and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panch kula and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners are the unfortunate parents, who have lost their young son aged 15 years due to electrocution. On 1.8.2009, the late son of the petitioners climbed over a black berry tree in Village Kakoda. 11 K.V.A electric line was passing through the area, which was touching the branches of the tree. On account of live wire, current pass through the tree and the deceased child got electrocuted at his thigh. He died at the spot. A daily diary report was registered by the police. Post-mortem was got conducted. Cause of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17037 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: death was opined to be cardiac respiratory failure due to electric shock. The petitioners accordingly have filed this petition to claim compensation, pleading that their son died because of negligence on the part of the Uttar Haryana Vijli Nigam. Before filing the petition, the petitioners had served a notice on the Board and thereafter had made the present approach. In response, the respondents would plead that no cause is made out to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The allegations of negligence as made in the petition are denied. However, the fact that late son of the petitioners died due to electrocution is not disputed. It is stated in the reply that the answering respondents have taken all the necessary precautions and care for maintaining the 11 K.V.A line. It is also stated that the petitioners have raised disputed questions of facts and hence, prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition. I have heard counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the case of Paramjit Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 511, where Division Bench of this Court has adopted a formula as available under Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation, as is applicable in fatal accident cases. Reference is made to the case of M.P.Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari, 2002 (1) Civil Court Cases 685, where it is held that Electricity Board would be liable to pay compensation even in those cases where there was no negligence on the part of the Board. That being the legal position, the respondent-Board can not escape liability to pay compensation. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17037 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: The only question now left to be decided is amount of compensation required to be paid. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner was required to place on record the parameters which would govern the award of compensation in such like cases. In this regard, my attention is invited to the case of Parkash Singh and another Vs. Surjit Singh and others, 2010 (2) Latest Judicial Reports 628. A sum of `2,95,000/- was awarded as compensation in this case due to the death of a boy aged 15 years. The relevant observations in this regard are as under:- “5. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case that the deceased hailed from a poor family and he could grow to be a labourer or driver, the contribution of the deceased aged about 15 years towards his family could not be expected to be more than Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. Therefore, after applying a multiplier of 15, as directed by the Apex Court judgment in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) and after adding Rs.25,000/- as conventional compensation, the total compensation comes to Rs.2,95,000/-.” Since the deceased in this case was also aged 15 years, it would be reasonable to say that his income could be assessed at `1500/- per month. Calculating the compensation payable on this basis and by adding conventional compensation, an amount of `3,00,000/- is considered fair and reasonable and is awarded to the petitioners. I may mention here that writ court can award compensation by way of public law proceedings. The doubt, if any, in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17037 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: this regard can be dispelled by making reference to number of precedents like Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 746 and Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of `3,00,000/- as compensation. Let the amount be disbursed to the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event of delay in disbursing the amount, the petitioners shall be entitled to an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it is due to the date of payment. April 06,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE