Writ Court May Award Compensation On Account Of Breach Of Public Duty In Addition To Claim Of Tort Under Private Law: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a writ Court may award compensation to a person aggrieved in addition to the independent right of the party to claim compensation under the private law in a civil action based on tort.

These observations came in response to the plea filed for compensation on account of the death of a child who was allegedly electrocuted after a heavy electricity wire had fallen on him.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "A writ Court may award compensation to a person aggrieved and against the wrongdoer, on account of breach of its public duty, in addition to the independent right of the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in a civil action based on tort, by way of a suit instituted before a Court of competent jurisdiction. The award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is thus without prejudice to any other action like suit for damages etc. which may be lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased qua the same matter."

The quantum of compensation however would depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no straight jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf, the Court added.

The Court was hearing a plea challenging the order passed by Chief Engineer of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd, (DHBVN) Delhi whereby the claim of the petitioner to grant compensation on account of the death of their 3-year-old son namely Arav Sharma has been rejected and a further prayer to direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs to the petitioner along with 18% per annum w.e.f. 30.01.2020.

It was alleged that the deceased child was playing on the terrace and all of a sudden, the heavy electricity line of 11000 KV passing abutting the roof of the petitioner struck the child leading to an immediate death.

The DHBVN submitted that the accident in question had not occurred as a result of the carelessness or negligence of the distribution licensee. It has been averred that the petitioners have illegally extended his house almost beneath the 11 KV line.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to Sanjay Gupta and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2022) 7 SCC 203], wherein reliance was placed on D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) 1 SCC 416] to underscore that the claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortious acts of the public servants.

It also referred to the High Court's decision in “Jagir versus State of Haryana” [ CWP-2648 of 2014]  wherein it was held that the writ Court has the power and discretion to assess a fair and proper compensation, even in the absence of proper and impeccable pleadings or evidence.

In the present case, the Court opined that a writ Court may, in a given circumstance, award compensation to a person aggrieved, where a person has suffered injuries/loss of life as a result of a danger brought around by the respondent (the distribution licensee being the respondent in the present case).

The element of compensation is granted against the breach of public duty and is without prejudice to the rights of a person aggrieved to seek his remedies in a private law action against the violator before a Court of competent jurisdiction, it emphasised.

The judge also said that even though, the principles of the Motor Vehicles Act are not applicable per se, however, they may be regarded as guiding principles by a Court of competent jurisdiction to ascertain the compensation payable to a person aggrieved.

A disputed question of fact would however emerge in the present case as to whether the injury in question was sustained purely as a result of the fault of the petitioner or is attributable to the default of the respondent-distribution licensee. Even in an eventuality of contributory negligence, the petitioner would nonetheless be entitled to some compensation, the Court observed.

Justice Bhardwaj highlighted that "although a construction was allegedly being raised in violation of law, however, the respondent failed to take appropriate steps to stop construction raised in violation of law and chose to look the other way, thus contributing in the occurrence due to a prima facie lapse."

The Court disposed of the case, stating that, without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the present case or recording any definite finding as to which party was at lapse or as to whether it was a case of contributory negligence, lest it may prejudice the case of the respective parties, as it raises disputed questions of facts which cannot be ascertained in writ jurisdiction.

However, in order to meet the financial hardship of the petitioners, an interim compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs was awarded to the petitioners.

They may, if so advised, approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking just and appropriate compensation as per law, the Court added.

Case: DEEPAK SHARMA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 214

Click here to read/download the order