J&K High Court Orders ₹11.63 Lakh Compensation To Family Of Electrician Electrocuted During Repair Work
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
19 Dec 2024 8:00 PM IST
Upholding the principle of respondeat superior, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has awarded ₹11.63 lakh as compensation to the family of an electrician who lost his life due to electrocution while conducting repairs on an 11 KV power line.
In allowing a compensation petition of the family of the deceased electrician Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,
“.. the petition succeeds and by issuance of writ of mandamus, the respondents are commanded to pay an amount of Rs. 11,63,000/- along with interest @7.5% per annum in favour of the petitioners from the date of filing of instant petition till the date of its actual payment”
The writ petition was filed by Vaishno Devi, the widow of the deceased, along with her two children, seeking compensation for the death of Shail Singh, who was electrocuted while repairing a high-voltage 11 KV electric line. On August 29, 2017, employees of the Power Development Department (PDD) engaged Singh to carry out repair work in Kathar, Jammu.
During the task, he sustained a severe electric shock, resulting in critical injuries, including the amputation of his arm. Despite extensive medical treatment, Singh succumbed to his injuries on September 24, 2017, at PGI Chandigarh.
The petitioners claimed that the PDD employees were negligent in ensuring a safe working environment. They contended that Singh, a private electrician, was engaged without adequate safeguards, which directly led to the fatal accident. As a result, they sought ₹30 lakh in compensation, citing the loss of their sole earning member.
The respondents did not dispute the engagement of Singh or the circumstances of the accident. However, they argued procedural limitations and denied direct liability for compensating the petitioners. The department admitted that Singh was accompanied by its lineman during the repair work and acknowledged that the accident occurred while Singh was performing duties entrusted to him by its employees.
Justice Wani meticulously examined the case and noted that it was undisputed that Singh had been engaged by employees of the respondent department for the repair work and that he had died as a result of electrocution during the course of the assignment. This established a clear case of negligence attributable to the department, bringing into play the doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds a principal liable for the acts of its agents, the court underscored.
The court added that this principle places the employer in the same position as if they had committed the wrongful act themselves.
Citing the landmark judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidyawati (AIR 1962 SC 933), Justice Wani rejected the defense of sovereign immunity, emphasizing that the State, like any private employer, is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees. The court further remarked that sovereign immunity cannot shield public authorities from liability for negligent acts that cause harm to individuals.
Justice Wani also invoked the principle of strict liability, as articulated in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 SCC 1 395) and observed that the maintenance and repair of high-voltage electric lines constitute inherently hazardous activities, placing an absolute liability on the employer for any harm caused.
The court further highlighted the broader implications of the respondents' negligence, noting that the death of the deceased deprived the petitioners of their fundamental right to livelihood, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This violation, Justice Wani held, justified the invocation of the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
In determining the compensation, the court relied on established principles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (AIR 2017 SC 5157) and Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009 AIR SC 3104) and calculated Singh's monthly income, future prospects, and deductions for personal expenses, applying a multiplier based on his age. Additionally, the court awarded sums for funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and loss of estate.
Computing the total figure as ₹11.63 lakh, the court also directed that the amount be paid with an annual interest of 7.5% from the date of filing the petition until its realization.
Case Title: Vaishno Devi and ors Vs Commissioner Secy. to P.D.D. Department and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 342
