Live Wire Accident: Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Enhance Compensation Based On Subsequent Govt Circulars/ Notifications
The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant additional compensation to a man claiming that he lost 60% eyesight due to an accident from fall of a live wire in April 2018. It ruled that the accident had occurred before the Gazette notification issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC) on December 21, 2018, rendering the claim for extra compensation...
The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant additional compensation to a man claiming that he lost 60% eyesight due to an accident from fall of a live wire in April 2018. It ruled that the accident had occurred before the Gazette notification issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC) on December 21, 2018, rendering the claim for extra compensation invalid.
However, the court urged the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) to consider extending help to the petitioner under corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary said, “This Court is however of the view that the petitioner having suffered serious injury, it is also the responsibility of the respondent JBVNL to take all possible care and extend help to the petitioner under the corporate social responsibility so, that the suffering of the petitioner are mitigated to some extent and for that purpose the respondents themselves have submitted that if anything is possible under Corporate Social Responsibility, the same will be extended to the petitioner but certainly in accordance with law.”
“Accordingly, the petitioner may approach the respondent No. 3 by filing a representation and if anything is possible within the parameters of law under corporate social responsibility , the respondent No.3 shall do the needful expeditiously so that the suffering of the petitioner are mitigated,” Justice Choudhary added.
The petitioner - Laltu Parira's counsel argued that the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded to the petitioner was inadequate and violated the provisions of the Gazette notification issued in December 2018.
The respondents, in their defence, argued that the assessment of damages was carried out based on circulars then in force and that the notification relied upon by the petitioner came into effect after the date of the accident. The respondents further pointed out that the assessment order showed the petitioner had suffered 40% visual disability, and in accordance with the relevant circular, the damages were assessed, resulting in an award of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner.
After hearing the respective counsel, the Court opined that the accident had taken place on April 12, 2018, and the claim for compensation by the petitioner, based on the Gazette notification dated December 21, 2018, was not acceptable. It referred to Clause A2(2.2) of the notification, which clearly stated that, “the regulation came into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette of the Government of Jharkhand which was published on 21st December, 2018.”
Case Title: Laltu Parira vs The State of Jharkhand And Others
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 145