Ex-Gratia Relief Cannot Replace Court Ordered Compensation: J&K High Court Upholds ₹20 Lakh Compensation For Electrocution Victim

Dismissing an appeal by PDD Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Mohammad Yousuf Wani reasoned,

“The expression 'ex-gratia' means out of grace or gratuitous. The ex-gratia relief in fact is the amount which the Government has volunteered to pay to the victims of electrocution due to negligence of the Power Development Department. The policy for grant of ex-gratia relief cannot come in the way of Courts to compensate the victims for the electrocution in

an appropriate manner”.

The case revolved around one Abrar Ahmad Tantray, who at the age of eight suffered life-altering injuries due to a snapped 11 kV electric wire in Kulgam, in 2007. The incident left the victim with severe burns, resulting in the amputation of his left arm and 75% disability as certified by the medical board. Despite his family's repeated pleas, the PDD failed to act on his compensation claim, prompting the victim to file a writ petition in 2018 after attaining majority.

The writ court ordered the PDD to pay Rs. 20 lakh with interest, which was challenged by the department on grounds including alleged absence of negligence, excessive compensation, and applicability of a government order capping ex-gratia relief at Rs. 7.5 lakh for total disability.

The appellants (PDD) argued that there was no negligence on their part, claiming the victim came into contact with the transformer on his own. They also submitted that the compensation awarded by the writ court was excessive and failed to consider the government order limiting relief.

Rejecting the PDD's contentions, the court made several key observations the court emphasized that the department had a duty to ensure safety by insulating or securing the transformer. The victim's contact with a live wire at such a young age was sufficient proof of negligence.

“Otherwise also, the appellants cannot impute any negligence to the minor child. Even under Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, the child below seven years of age is incapable of committing any crime (Sec 20 B.N.S). Though the respondent No.1 was 8 years of age, but the immunity granted to the respondent No.1shall remain same except under the conditions contained in Section 21 of B.N.S”, the court remarked.

The bench underscored that ex-gratia relief is discretionary and cannot replace judicial compensation for the department's negligence. The court cited the principle that courts are empowered to award fair compensation irrespective of government policies.

Drawing parallels with motor accident claims, the court held that the principles used in such cases, including compensation for pain, suffering, and future medical expenses, were equally applicable to electrocution cases.

Furthermore the court acknowledged the victim's minority and his illiterate parents' inability to act earlier, ruling that such delays should not bar justice in cases of severe personal injury.

Referring Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [(2020) 4 SCC 413], where the Supreme Court determined compensation based on minimum wages and conventional heads for a minor accident victim the bench affirmed that the victim deserved more than the Rs. 20 lakh awarded by the writ court but refrained from modifying the compensation.

The court concluded that the PDD failed in its duty to ensure public safety and upheld the writ court's judgment, dismissing the appeal as devoid of merit.

Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Abrar Ahmad Tantray

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 11

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment