Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

L.P.A No. 46/97

Advocates

R. A. Khan
Govt. Advocate
Malik Ghulam Hassan

Judges

Hon'ble Sh. Justice Bhawani Singh
Hon'ble Sh. Justice Bashir-Ud-Din

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Executive Engineer v. Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat & Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat v. Executive Engineer

Factual and Procedural Background

The matters (LPA No. 46/97 — Executive Engineer v. Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat and OWP No. 1123/96 — Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat v. Executive Engineer) were disposed of together by this judgment referencing an earlier order of this Court dated July 14, 1998.

The petitioner is Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat, son of the deceased Jalal-ud-din Bhat (also called Jalla Bhat), resident of Chandrigam, Tehsil Tral, District Pulwama. The petitioner was about twenty years old at the time of the proceedings. The deceased was about forty-eight years old and cultivated primarily paddy on his land; there was a suggestion (not pleaded) that he may also have worked as a labourer.

On September 15, 1995, while working in his field, a high tension 11 K.V. electric line passed through the field fell and the deceased was electrocuted, reportedly dying instantaneously. The incident was reported to Police Station Awantipora and registered as FIR No. 80 of 1995. The petitioner, as the deceased's son and the then sole surviving male member of the family (which included mother and two unmarried sisters), sought compensation and employment from the respondents. The Deputy Commissioner Pulwama granted an ex-gratia relief of Rs. 5,000 (order No. 93.R dated January 2, 1996), which the petitioner received.

The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 through the writ petition contending death was due to the respondents' negligence in failing to maintain the high tension line. The respondents admitted that an 11 KV line had been burnt/snap near a pin insulator and a conductor lay in the paddy fields around 11 a.m. on September 15, 1995, but denied negligence and contended compensation claims belonged in the Civil Court; police investigation was pending.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether this Court (the High Court) has jurisdiction to entertain and finally adjudicate a petition seeking compensation for death caused by alleged electrocution due to a fallen high tension line, or whether the matter must be relegated to a Civil Court.
Whether the death was due to negligence of the respondents responsible for maintenance of the high tension 11 K.V. line.
If liability is established, what amount of compensation should be awarded to the petitioner and on what terms (payment/deposit, safeguards for family, interest for delay)?

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' / Government Counsel's Arguments

The incident involves disputed facts and therefore is more appropriately decided by a Civil Court; this point was supported by reference to AIR 1976 SC 475 (Arya Vyasa Sabha etc. v. The Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Endowments).
The claimed compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 is "abnormally high" given the deceased's background and earnings.
Negligence on the part of respondents was expressly not admitted; the Police investigation was yet to be completed.

Petitioner's Arguments

On the facts presented (FIR, village chowkidar record, report of Assistant Executive Engineer, communications of April 10 and April 15, 1996, and Deputy Commissioner order), there is no material dispute of the basic facts: the 11 K.V. line fell in the field and the deceased died of electrocution.
Given those facts, the High Court is competent to hear and adjudicate the claim and to award reasonable compensation without directing the petitioner to the Civil Court.
The petitioner sought compensation and (initially) employment; the petition stressed the family's financial hardship and the petitioner's unemployment.

Table of Precedents Cited

The Court expressly listed multiple authorities as reflecting a similar view that such cases can be adjudicated by the High Court/Apex Court where adequate material is produced. The entries below record each precedent as cited in the opinion and indicate how the Court used them in this judgment.

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
AIR 1976 SC 475 (Arya Vyasa Sabha etc. v. The Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Endowments)	Cited by respondents/government counsel to support contention that matter can appropriately be decided in the Civil Court.	The Court noted this was relied upon by the respondents but nonetheless held that the High Court had jurisdiction to decide the present petition on the facts before it.
AIR 1982 SC 149 (S.P. Gupta v. President of India)	Cited as authority in the line of cases supporting High Court/Apex Court jurisdiction for adjudicating such matters.	Referred to as part of a series of cases demonstrating that such claims can be adjudicated by higher courts when adequate material is produced.
AIR 1983 SC 1086 (1983 Cri LJ 1644), Radul Sah v. State of Bihar	Cited as authority for the same general proposition about jurisdiction and remedial relief by superior courts.	Included among authorities relied on to support the High Court's competence to adjudicate the petition.
AIR 1984 SC 802 (1984 Lab IC 560), Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India	Cited as part of the jurisprudence recognizing exercise of high court/Apex Court jurisdiction in public interest/welfare contexts.	Relied upon as part of the body of authority justifying adjudication by this Court.
AIR 1984 SC 1026	Cited among authorities reflecting similar views on jurisdiction/relief in comparable situations.	Included in the list of precedents supporting the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India; AIR 1986 SC 494 (1986 Cri LJ 192)	Cited as a supportive authority in the sequence of cases addressing judicial relief and jurisdiction.	Counted among precedents to show that such matters can be entertained and remedied by higher courts.
Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K.; AIR 1987 SC 1086	Cited within the list of cases demonstrating comparable judicial interventions.	Referred to as part of settled practice permitting high courts to provide relief in appropriate cases.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India; ILR (1987) HP 359, AIR 1988 Him Pra 13	Cited as part of the body of case law on public law remedies and judicial role.	Included to show precedential support for entertaining such petitions.
Jaram Singh v. State of H.P.; ILR (1987) HP 373, AIR 1989 Him Pra 5	Cited among decisions supporting the High Court's remedial jurisdiction.	Listed as one of the authorities endorsing adjudication by higher courts.
Kalawati v. State of H.P.	Cited as another case in the series of precedents on jurisdiction/relief.	Referred to in support of the Court's view that it could hear the petition.
Thressia… v. K.S.E.B….	Cited as a precedent relevant to adjudication/compensation in contexts involving public utilities (as cited by this Court).	Included among authorities relied upon to justify adjudication by the Court.
AIR 1989 SC 1570, A.S. Mittal v. State of U.P.	Cited as part of the line of cases on judicial relief and compensation in public law contexts.	Referred to as corroborating precedent for the High Court's competence.
(1990) 1 SCC 422; AIR 1990 SC 513, Saheli v. Commissioner of Police	Cited among authorities demonstrating remedial powers of higher courts in appropriate cases.	Relied upon in the Court's compilation of relevant precedents.
AIR 1990 SC 1417, Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India	Cited as authority within the broader line of cases on administrative/constitutional remedies.	Included among the precedents the Court referenced in support of its jurisdictional conclusion.
AIR 1991 SC 1231, Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thillavillalan (1991) 3 SCC 482	Cited as part of the jurisprudence on remedial jurisdiction and state liability in appropriate contexts.	Referred to as corroborative authority for adjudication by this Court.
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar; AIR 1991 Ker 396	Cited as an authority supportive of judicial intervention in matters affecting rights/compensation.	Listed among precedents relied on for jurisdictional support.
University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai; AIR 1992 SC 2069	Cited as part of cited case law on courts' remedial roles.	Included in the list of authorities relied upon by the Court.
Smt. Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu; AIR 1992 Orissa 68	Cited among the cases showing interventionist jurisdiction where appropriate.	Counted among authorities supporting that the Court could entertain the petition.
Padam Behari Lal v. Orissa State Electricity Board; AIR 1992 Cal 207	Cited as authority relevant to matters involving electricity boards/public utilities and liability.	Referred to as part of the body of case law that supports adjudication and compensation in such contexts.
Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. University of Calcutta; AIR 1993 SC 1960 (1993 Cri LJ 2899)	Cited as another decision within the catalogue of supportive precedents.	Included in the compendium of cases relied upon by the Court.
Smt. Nilabati alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa; AIR 1993 SC 1960 and 1993 (1) Sim LC 340	Cited as authority in the sequence of cases regarding state responsibility and compensation for wrongful death.	Referred to as part of the precedent base supporting the Court's power to award compensation.
Mohan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh; followed in AIR 1998 JK 37 (Miss. Haneefa Bano v. State of Jammu and Kashmir)	Cited as subsequent authority followed in this jurisdiction on similar issues of state liability/compensation.	Mentioned as later supporting authority consistent with the Court's view to entertain such petitions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in a stepwise analysis:

Jurisdiction: The Court first addressed whether it had jurisdiction to entertain and finally decide the petition. The Court answered this in the affirmative, noting that a "catena of cases" from the Apex Court and High Courts establishes that High Courts/Apex Court can adjudicate such matters where the petitioner produces adequate material. The Court also observed that, where a final determination is not possible, it can award interim compensation and leave civil remedies open.
Evidential assessment: The Court examined the documentary record presented by the petitioner and found the material sufficient. The material included the FIR (No. 80/1995) which recorded death by electric shock on September 15, 1995, the village chowkidar's record (Annexure C), the Assistant Executive Engineer's report dated September 16, 1995, communications of April 10 and April 15, 1996 from the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer, and the Deputy Commissioner Pulwama's order dated January 2, 1996 noting death by electrocution.
Factual conclusion: On the basis of these documents the Court concluded that the deceased died of electrocution on September 15, 1995 at about 11 a.m. while working in his field and that an 11 K.V. line had fallen into the field where the deceased was trapped and died instantly.
Liability: The Court held that the death was due to the negligence of the respondents, who were bound to maintain the high tension 11 K.V. line passing through the villagers' fields.
Quantum of compensation: Having found liability, the Court considered appropriate compensation in the light of the deceased's age (about 48), his role as the principal earner for a family of five, the small agricultural holdings, and the family's financial difficulty. The Court determined that Rs. 2,00,000 (two lakh rupees) was reasonable compensation in the circumstances.
Directions for payment and safeguarding family interests: The Court ordered payment within three months, noted Rs. 40,000 already deposited in the Registry (pursuant to an earlier direction), directed the respondents to deposit the balance Rs. 1,60,000 with Jammu and Kashmir Bank Branch, Awantipora, to be placed in fixed deposit in the names of the widow and children for two years (renewable), and allowed the petitioner to seek release of amounts for marriage, education or unavoidable expenditure upon application to the Court.
Interest and costs: The Court directed that if the amount was not deposited within the time allowed, respondents would be liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from January 7, 1999 until payment. The writ petition and appeal were disposed of in the terms above, with parties to bear their own costs.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The writ petitions (OWP No. 1123/96 and LPA No. 46/1997) were allowed in part: the Court held that the death of Jalal-ud-din Bhat was due to the negligence of the respondents in failing to maintain the 11 K.V. line and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the petitioner.

Direct consequences and implementation directives:

The respondents were directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000 to the petitioner within three months.
Rs. 40,000 already deposited in the Court registry pursuant to an earlier direction was to be released to the petitioner if not already released.
The balance Rs. 1,60,000 was to be deposited by respondents in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Branch, Awantipora, to be placed in fixed deposit in the names of Mst. Noori (widow), Mohd. Ashraf (son), Ms. Rafiqa (daughter), and Ms. Dilshada (daughter) for two years (renewable), with provision for the petitioner to apply to the Court for release of necessary funds for marriage, education or unavoidable expenditure.
If the respondents failed to deposit the amount within the stated period they would be liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from January 7, 1999 until deposit.
Both matters were disposed of in terms of this order and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

Broader implications: The opinion did not purport to lay down a novel or general rule beyond applying established authorities; it confined itself to holding that, on the specific facts and documentary material presented, the High Court could adjudicate the claim and award compensation. No new precedent was announced beyond application of cited authorities to the facts of this case.

Order: Writ Petition No. OWP 1123/96 and LPA No. 46/1997 disposed of in terms of the judgment; parties to bear their own costs.

Show full summary ...

Executive Engineer, Electricity (M & Re) Division, Awantipora, Anantnag And Another v. Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat And Others

Bhawani Singh, C.J:— We propose to dispose of both these matters (LPA No. 46/97 Executive Engineer v. Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat and OWP No. 1123/96 Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat v. Executive Engineer) by this judgment in view of order passed by this Court on July 14, 1998. Facts giving rise to the initiation of this case may be recorded briefly.

2. Petitioner is son of deceased Jalal-ud-din Bhat alias Jalla Bhat R/o Chanderigam, Tehsil Tral of District Pulwama. Petitioner's age is twenty years. His father was an agriculturist, cultivating his land growing primarily paddy on the total land in his ownership. Although it was hinted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased was working as labourer also but this fact has not been stated in this petition, therefore, we leave the matter at that.

3. On September 15, 1995 deceased was working in his field. High tension electricity line which passed through it has fallen in the field. Deceased was trapped in it and died instantaneously. Matter was reported to the Police and a First Information Report No. 80 of 1995 was registered in Police Station Awantipora. This report records the death of deceased due to electric shock. Petitioner approached the respondents seeking compensation and employment so that he could look after the family consisting of himself, mother and two unmarried sisters. With the death of deceased, petitioner remained the sole surviving male member in the family. It is pointed out that the case of the petitioner for employment was recommended by the Assistant Executive Engineer to his Superiors vide communication dated April 10, 1996 (Annexure E to the writ petition), followed by communication dated April 15, 1996 (Annexure F to writ petition) by Executive Engineer but no action was taken. This incident was reported to Deputy Commissioner Pulwama who awarded ex-gratia relief vide order No. 93.R dated January 2, 1996 to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- that has been received by the petitioner.

4. Through this petition, compensation of twenty lac has been claimed. It is stated that the deceased died due to sheer negligence of the respondents since they failed to maintain high tension line passing through the land of petitioner properly. The deceased was the sole male member of the family looking after it. By his death, the whole responsibility has been cast on the petitioner who is Matriculate but unemployed. The family is facing financial crisis according to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. In the memorandum of appeal, the respondents have admitted that one of the 11 KV lines on P.C.C pole near village Chandrigam, (Awantipora) was burnt near the pin insulator with the result that the conductor had got snapped and was lying in the paddy fields at about 11 a.m on September 15, 1995. This fact has been stated on the basis of report of concerned Assistant Executive Engineer and the field staff. It is stated that this incident was not recorded in the Log sheet at the Receiving Station Awantipora. Negligence on the part of respondents has not been admitted and it is submitted that compensation cannot be paid to the petitioner except in Civil Court and that the Police is yet to investigate the matter. These are the material facts in the pleadings of the parties.

6. Shri R.A Khan, learned Government counsel contended that in view of the dispute with respect to the incident, matter can appropriately be decided in the Civil Court. To bring home this contention reference was made to AIR 1976 SC 475 (Arya Vyasa Sabha etc. v. The Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Endowments). It was also contended that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that this matter can be appropriately decided by this Court, the compensation of rupees twenty lac is abnormally high, looking to the back ground and earnings of the deceased and his family. These contentions have been opposed by Shri Malik Ghulam Hasan, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel submits that in the light of facts stated in the petition and the reply by respondents, there is no dispute with respect to the material facts of the case and this Court can appropriately deal with this case and awarded compensation which is found reasonable on the basis of facts of the case.

7. First question is that whether this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and if so, whether this claim can be properly and effectively dealt with by it. We answer both these questions in affirmative. By this time it has been held in catena of cases by the Apex Court, this Court and other Courts that such like cases can be appropriately adjudicated by the High Court or the Apex Court provided the petitioner comes up with adequate material for seeking the relief. In case it is not possible to decide the case effectively and finally, the Court can grant interim compensation leaving the petitioner to claim further damages/compensation in the Civil Court.

8. After examining the facts of this case, we find that this case can be adjudicated by this Court finally and proper compensation awarded to the petitioner without directing him to approach the Civil Court. The incident was reported to the police on the same day. It finds mention in First Information Report No. 80/1995 registered at Police Station Awantipora registered by the brother of the deceased. It mentions that the deceased died due to electric shock in the fields where he was working on September 15, 1995. The 11 KV line had fallen in the field in which the deceased was trapped and died instantaneously. This fact is further supported by the record of Village Chowkidar (Annexure C to the writ petition). Again, it finds mention in the report of Assistant Executive Engineer dated 16-9-1995, followed by communication dated April 10, 1996 and April 15, 1996, former being from the Assistant Executive Engineer to Executive Engineer Awantipora and latter from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer, Elect. M & RE Circle Bijbehara. Apart from these documents, order of Deputy Commissioner Pulwama dated January 2, 1996 also mentions that the deceased died due to electrocution. Therefore, it is clearly demonstrated that the deceased died due to electrocution on September 15, 1995 around 11 a.m while he was working in his field. It is also established that electric line 11 K.V had fallen in the field in which the deceased was trapped and died there and then.

9. Consequently, it is held that the death of deceased was due to the negligence of respondents who were bound to maintain the High tension 11 K.V line passing through fields of the villagers. We hold that this Court can entertain petition of this nature and deal with it appropriately. Similar view has been taken in cases like in AIR 1982 SC 149, S.P Gupta v. President of India; AIR 1983 SC 1086 : (1983 Cri LJ 1644), Radul Sah v. State of Bihar; AIR 1984 SC 802 : (1984 Lab IC 560), Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India; AIR 1984 SC 1026, Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India; AIR 1986 SC 494 : (1986 Cri LJ 192), Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K.; AIR 1987 SC 1086, M.C Mehta v. Union of India; ILR (1987) HP 359, AIR 1988 Him Pra 13, Jaram Singh v. State of H.P; ILR (1987) HP 373, AIR 1989 Him Pra 5, Kalawati v. State of H.P; Thressia… v. K.S.E.B….; AIR 1989 SC 1570, A.S Mittal v. State of U.P; (1990) 1 SCC 422, AIR 1990 SC 513, Saheli v. Commissioner of Police; AIR 1990 SC 1417, Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India; AIR 1991 SC 1231, Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thillavillalan; (1991) 3 SCC 482, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar; AIR 1991 Ker 396, University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai; AIR 1992 SC 2069, Smt. Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu; AIR 1992 Orissa 68, Padam Behari Lal v. Orissa State Electricity Board; AIR 1992 Cal 207, Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. University of Calcutta; AIR 1993 SC 1960 : (1993 Cri LJ 2899), Smt. Nilabati alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and 1993 (1) Sim LC 340, Mohan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh followed in AIR 1998 JK 37 (Miss. Haneefa Bano v. State of Jammu and Kashmir).

10. Next question is what compensation should be paid to the petitioner in this case for the death of deceased. It is pointed out that deceased was forty eight year old. He was looking after family of five persons including himself. Due to his death, the members of the family are finding it difficult to make both ends meet. The deceased had small agricultural holdings, therefore, must be earning through other sources as well. Petitioner though Matriculate is also unemployed. His two sisters are also unmarried.

11. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that reasonable compensation in this case should be rupees two lac. Consequently, we direct the respondents to pay rupees two lac to the petitioner within a period of three months. Rupees 40,000/- have been deposited in the Registry of this Court pursuant to direction dated 20-12-1996. In case it has not been released in favour of the petitioner it be released by the Registry to the petitioner through counsel. Balance amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- be deposited by the respondents with Jammu and Kashmir Bank Branch, Awantipora. The Manager of the Bank is directed to put this amount in fixed deposit in the name of Mst. Noori (widow), Mohd. Ashraf (son), Ms. Rafiqa (daughter), Ms. Dilshada (daughter) for a period of two years in the first instance renewable for further period until otherwise directed by this Court. We make it clear that in case petitioner required some amount for marriage, education and any other unavoidable expenditure in the family, he would make application to this Court and seek order. Further, we make it clear that if the amount is not deposited within the time allowed, respondents shall render themselves liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from January 7, 1999 till final deposit as directed.

12. Writ Petition No. (OWP) 1123/96 and LPA No. 46/1997 are accordingly disposed of in terms aforesaid leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Order accordingly.

Executive Engineer, ... v. Mohmmad Ashraf Bhat ...