CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4292 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 21,2011 Suman and others .....Petitioners VERSUS The State of Haryana 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. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Sharuti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to seek compensation on account of death of Samar Singh due to a fatal accident on account of his electrocution. On 22.4.2007, Kailash Nath, A.L.M., was working on 11 K.V. transformer at Village Sunarian Kalan, to rectify the defects in the electric supply. His plier fell down. Kailash Nath asked Samar CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4292 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Singh, who happened to be standing nearby, to pick up the same and hand it over to him. While Samar Singh was in the process of handing over plier, Kailash Nath touched his hand to jumper and received electric shock. Samar Singh tried to save him and he came in the grip of electric shock. Both of them fell down and were taken to PGIMS, Rohtak. Samar Singh died while under treatment. Kailash Nath registered an FIR under Sections 337 and 304A IPC and alleged that accident occurred due to negligence of Ram Niwas, S.S.A., who was an employee of respondent No.2. The doctor had also opined that cause of death of Samar Singh was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of electric shock. It is, thus, clearly established that Samar Singh died of electrocution under the circumstances as recorded by the eye witnesses. Petitioner No.1, who is widow of Samar Singh and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 being his minor sons, have filed this writ petition to seek compensation of `25 lacs. Initially, the petitioners have filed a suit at Rohtak, which they could not prosecute, when asked to pay court fee of `1,04,370/-. They have accordingly filed this writ petition, seeking the same relief. As per the reply filed by respondent-Board, no legal or fundamental right of the petitioners has been infringed and, thus, they are not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is also stated that the petitioners have raised disputed questions of fact in regard to accident and claim of compensation can appropriately be adjudicated through civil suit alone. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4292 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: respondents accordingly would plead that the writ petition would not be maintainable and the petitioners should be relegated to seek the remedy of civil suit, which they had earlier invoked. Otherwise, the respondents have not denied the facts as pleaded in Paras 3 to 14 of the writ petition, where the manner of accident has been referred to in detail. As per the reply, Kailash Nath had called the Sub Station, Jhajjar, to request Sh.Ram Niwas to switch off the feeder and only after confirmation, Kailash Nath had climbed to unscrew the nut of the defective contact. The fact that he had requested Samar Singh to hand him over the plier is also stated by him and so also the manner in which he received an electric shock. Reply reveals that both the victims had fainted and were taken to PGIMS, Rohtak. It is further disclosed in the reply that incident was investigated by V.K.Khurana, who had recommended payment of suitable compensation to the petitioners. A true typed fair copy of the investigation has also been placed on record as Annexure R3/1. The prayer of the petitioners to calculate the compensation by adopting the formula of income and dependency, however, has been disputed and accordingly it is stated that the petitioner be asked to file a suit to claim compensation. I have heard the counsel for the parties. Since the facts are not in any dispute and have rather been conceded in the reply, no useful purpose would be served by relegating the petitioners to an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit. Apparently, the petitioners are poor persons. Asking them to file a civil suit where they would have to fix advalorem court fee on the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4292 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: amount of compensation so claimed, would amount to denying relief to them as they are not in position to fix court fee. The Court had directed the petitioners to fix advalorem court fee, which they were not in a position to do. The petitioners then had filed this writ petition. Since there had been no adjudication on merits of the claim and the respondents have not even disputed the right of the petitioners to the compensation, no useful purpose would be served in requiring the petitioners to now file a civil suit. The issue can very well be considered and decided by this Court to do justice to the parties. It was not disputed before me that late Samar Singh was having 23 kanals of land and was cultivating the same. Even taking into consideration the lease money, which this land would fetch, it would be safe to say that late Samar Singh was earning a sum of `60,000/- per annum. On this basis, his monthly income would work out to be `5000/- per month. Considering his age, which is 34 years, multiplier of 15 can easily be allowed in this case. By excluding his dependency, the monthly income of late Samar Singh can be assessed as `3,800/-. The petitioners, thus, were entitled to a compensation of nearly `5 lacs. In my considered opinion , compensation of `5 lacs would be fair and reasonable and can be awarded in the interest of justice. It is not otherwise disputed that a writ court can award compensation by way of public law proceedings. The doubt, if any, in 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4292 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: Sah Vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to a sum of `5 lacs 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. February 21,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE