SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has revised and reduced the compensation awarded to the family of a Uri man who died after being struck by a live 11,000 KV electric supply line. The man, Nazir Ahmad, was electrocuted in July 2013 when a high-tension electric wire reportedly fell on his head while he was at work. The court held the administration accountable for negligence but ruled that the compensation awarded earlier by the writ court was miscalculated and not based on proper legal standards.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the judgment in an appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir against the 2022 judgment of the writ court that had awarded the victim’s family Rs 24.30 lakh with 6 percent annual interest from the date of filing the petition. The High Court condoned a delay of 497 days in filing the appeal and took up the matter for adjudication on merits.
According to the case record, the electrocution incident took place on July 24, 2013, at around 7:40 p.m. and was initially attributed to the failure of the power department to properly maintain high-voltage lines. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Bijhama, Uri following local protest. The deceased, Nazir Ahmad, was alleged to be the sole breadwinner of the family and worked as a carpenter earning Rs 500 per day.
The appellants, i.e., the Union Territory and its departments, had contested the writ petition before the Single Judge claiming that the victim himself was at fault and had tampered with the power line. They also argued that the writ court should not have entertained the petition since it involved complex facts that could only be decided by a civil court. However, the High Court rejected this objection and upheld the writ court’s finding that the incident was due to official negligence. It held that in matters involving dangerous and hazardous activity, the burden of maintaining safety lies squarely on the state. The bench held that in such cases the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) was applicable, meaning that the circumstances themselves indicated negligence.
The court noted that the appellants had failed to produce any credible evidence showing the deceased had contributed to the accident in any manner. Referring to the police investigation report and the absence of rebuttal evidence, the judges affirmed the finding that the accident occurred due to the department’s negligence in maintaining electric supply lines.
However, the court found fault with how the compensation was calculated. The writ court, while awarding over Rs 24 lakh, had taken the victim’s alleged income as Rs 500 per day without documentary proof and applied a multiplier of 15. The Division Bench said that the post-mortem report listed the deceased’s age as 45 and in absence of concrete proof, that should have been the benchmark. It held that the multiplier applicable in such a case should have been 14 instead of 15, as laid down in the Supreme Court’s judgments in Sarla Verma v. DTC and Pranay Sethi v. National Insurance Co.
The High Court also observed that the daily wage rate should have been calculated based on official minimum wages prevalent in 2013. Though the minimum wage for a labourer was less than Rs 200, the court, keeping in view the facts and occupation of the deceased, assessed it at Rs 250 per day. It added 25 per cent towards future prospects, given that the deceased was in the 40–50 age bracket, and excluded litigation cost as it was already covered through interest.
After applying corrected multipliers, revised income assumptions, and permissible heads of compensation, the court concluded that a total amount of Rs 11.2 lakh would be just and fair. This includes Rs 10.5 lakh as loss of dependency, Rs 40,000 for loss of consortium, Rs 15,000 towards funeral expenses, and Rs 15,000 for loss of estate. The court directed the amount to be paid with 6 percent interest per annum from the date of the petition till realization.
The court further ordered that the compensation be distributed equally among the legal heirs and instructed the Registry to release the amount after proper verification. Any excess amount lying with the Registry would be refunded to the Union Territory administration.
With this order, the appeal was disposed of, modifying the earlier judgment in terms of compensation, while retaining the liability of the state for the accident.
