CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.626 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 30 ,2011 Prem Devi .....Petitioner VERSUS Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Hisar 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. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Husband of the petitioner died due to electrocution on 17.11.2007. FIR was also registered under Section 304-A IPC in regard to this incident. Since the deceased husband of the petitioner died due to fault and negligence on the part of respondent-Board, he had prayed for adequate compensation and damages, but the respondents have not settled the same. The petitioner accordingly has approached this Court for grant of `20 lacs as compensation. Husband of the petitioner, namely, Zile Singh, was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.626 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: working as a Driver in Holy Senior Secondary School, Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani and was receiving `3800/- as monthly salary. He was having 4 acres of agriculture land from which he was statedly having income of `1,00,000/- per annum. As already noted, he died on 17.11.2007 due to electrocution, as one electric wire had broken down and, thus, resulting in electrocution and death of Zile Singh. Post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted, where the doctor had opined that the deceased had died due to electric current shock, leading to sudden cardiac arrest. The petitioner-wife has filed the claim for compensation but no action was taken. In response to notice, the respondents have filed written statement, pleading that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated for her to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of filing civil suit, where this claim of compensation can properly be adjudicated. On merits, no parawise reply is filed but common reply is filed to the averments made in Paras 3 to 12 of the writ petition. It is conceded that late Zile Singh suffered an electric shock and died no the spot. The matter was enquired into by Electrical Inspector of the respondent-Department and it was revealed that suddenly one phase wire of Khalod feeder from 33 K.V Siwani broke down near Gudha Minor in the morning hour and fell on the victim, who was just passing below this very high tension wire and due to unfortunate contact, deceased Zile Singh got electrocuted. Copy of this enquiry report and finding are annexed with the reply. Significantly, it is also conceded that officials of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.626 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: respondent-Nigam are held responsible. The compensation has been denied only on the ground that the same can not be assessed in view of factors like income, dependency etc., which is required to be proved by leading evidence. Once the liability and negligence is conceded, virtually there would not be any dispute on facts, for which there would be any need to relegate the petitioner to alternative of filing a civil suit. Not only that, the petitioner has clearly disclosed in the writ petition that her husband was drawing a salary of `3800/- per month and in addition was earning a sum of `1,00,000/- per annum from 4 acres of land owned by him. The contents of this para of the writ petition have been baldly denied while conceding that the husband of the petitioner died because of electrocution. In this background, it would be fair to calculate the income of the petitioner on the basis of his salary and his earning from agriculture. The deceased was drawing a salary of `3800/- per month and statedly was earning `8000/- per month as agriculture income. Agriculture income may appear to be a bit on the higher side. It would be fair to say that the deceased was having an income of `5000/- per month from agriculture land. His total monthly income, thus, would work out to be `8,800/-. Taking into consideration the dependency, the income of the deceased would work out approximately to be `5,000/-. Considering his age, multiplier of 13 can be applied. The petitioner, thus, would be entitled to approximately a sum of `7,00,000/- as compensation. In my considered view, compensation of `7,00,000/- would be fair and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.626 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: reasonable and can be awarded in the interest of justice. I may mention here that 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 Sah Vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of `7,00,000/- as compensation. Let the amount be disbursed to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event of delay in disbursing the amount, the petitioner shall be entitled to an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it is due to the date of payment. March 30,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE