4 Serial No. 42 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case : WP(C) No. 2628/2019 Ahmed Din S/o Mohd. Amin R/o Village Sarh, Dhaka, Tehsil Mahore District Reasi. …Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. A.K. Sawhney, Advocate VERSUS 1. State of Jammu & Kashmir, through its Commissioner/Secretary, Power Development Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. Development Commissioner (Power), J&K, Srinagar. 3 .Chief Engineer, Power Development Department, Jammu. 4. Assistant Executive Engineer, EM&RE, Power Development Department, Division Reasi. …Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Pallavi Sharma Assisting Counsel to Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 05.03.2025 1. Through the medium of instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction upon the respondents to grant compensation in his favour in the 2 WP(C) 2628 of 2019 amount of ₹ 80.00 lac on account of permanent disability caused to him due to negligence of the officers/officials of the respondent-department. 2. As per case of the petitioner on 02.12.2026, while he was busy in daily routine work at home in Village Sarh, Dhaka Tehsil Mahore, at about 7.00 PM all of a sudden the supply of electric power increased in whole area due which a number of incidents took place. According to the petitioner, due to abrupt increase in voltage the electric wires caught fire as a result of which he got electrocuted and received burns injuries to his right forearm, right upper arm, right thigh, right foot, right hand with deformity of his right little finger. He was admitted to Chopra Nursing Home w.e.f. 09.02.2017 to 04.03.2017 and prior to that he was admitted to Govt. Medical College, Jammu w.e.f. 02.12.2016 to 09.02.2017. According to the petitioner, he had to incur expenses of ₹ 10.00 lac on his treatment and he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. 3. It has been claimed by the petitioner that injuries which he suffered are as a result of negligence on the part of the employees of the respondent-department as it was their duty to maintain the electric transmission lines which they failed to do. It has been submitted that regarding the said incident FIR No. 83/2016 dated 04.12.2016 for commission of offences under Section 336,337, 427 RPC was registered against the employees of the respondents, namely, Mohd Shafi, Bashir Ahmed, Nisar Ahmed and Junior Engineer concerned. On the basis of these assertions the petitioner has sought compensation in the amount of ₹ 80.00 lac from the respondents. 4. The respondents have contested the instant writ petition by filing their reply. In their reply, it has been submitted that 25 KVA transformer installed at 3 WP(C) 2628 of 2019 Village Sarh feeding about 35 number of houses got short circuited on 02.12.2016 at around 6.30 PM due to some unknown reasons, resulting in an electrical accident as a result of which three persons got injuries. It has been submitted that after receiving the information about the accident from the locals the field staff immediately rushed to the spot and isolated the faulty transformer and replaced it with a new one. It has been submitted that the fault within the transformer/electrical equipment can occur due to any technical/external environmental reason. It has been further submitted that the challan arising out of the FIR which was lodged pursuant to the incident has been dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahore vide judgment dated 29.08.2022, which shows that no negligence has been proved against the respondents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 6. So far as the incident of short circuiting of 25 KVA transformer on the fateful day is concerned, the same is not in dispute. It has been admitted by the respondents that the transformer in village Sarh got short circuited at about 6.30 PM resulting in a electrical accident and as a consequence whereof several persons received injuries The respondents have placed on record a copy of judgment of acquittal passed by JMIC, Mahore in which name of the petitioner figures as a prosecution witness and it has been clearly noted in the said judgment that the petitioner herein did suffer injuries as a result of the incident. In fact the respondents have admitted that the petitioner did receive injuries as a result of the accident. 7. The only contention of the respondents is that the incident could have taken place due to any technical/external environmental reason and that 4 WP(C) 2628 of 2019 negligence, carelessness or failure of maintenance of electrical wires by the respondent-department is clearly ruled out in the present case. 8. In the above context, it has to be noted that the respondent-department is engaged in the activity of supply and transmission of electricity, which if not controlled can prove highly hazardous. The uncontrolled discharge of electric currents can cause huge damage to human and animal life. Those who deal in dangerous and hazards substances are duty bound to exercise extreme care and caution, while maintaining the installations through which these substances are transmitted. The electricity department has a statutory duty and obligation to ensure that electric lines and transformers are maintained in a safe condition to prevent accidents. The fact that the officials of the respondent-department allowed the faulty transformer to operate clearly shows negligence on their part. The respondents, therefore, cannot escape their liability by stating that the incident took place due to unknown reasons. It was the duty of the officials of the respondent-department to not only maintain the electric equipments and transmission lines, but also to ensure that same are kept in proper condition so as to avoid any mis-hap. The respondent-department being vicariously liable for the acts /omissions of its employees cannot be exonerated of its liability to compensate the petitioner who has admittedly suffered 30% permanent disability on account of the incident. 9. The contention of the respondents that because the accused in the FIR arising out of the accident were acquitted, therefore, negligence in the instant case is not proved is without any merit. A perusal of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate clearly shows that the acquittal has been 5 WP(C) 2628 of 2019 recorded on technical grounds on account of faulty investigation conducted in the case. The learned Magistrate has, while recording a finding that the incident is proved, held that culpability of the accused impleaded in the challan could not be established due to faulty investigation. Even otherwise, the standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt, while as in the present proceedings the standard of proof is of a lower degree. Thus, merely because the criminal charges against the officials of respondent-department could not be proved it cannot be stated that they were not negligent for purpose of fixing their liability in tort. 10. Keeping in view the admitted position that the incident did take place which resulted in injuries to the petitioner, the only inference which can be drawn is that the incident has taken place due to the negligence of the employees of the respondent-department. Therefore, the respondents are legally bound to compensate the petitioner who has suffered injuries on account of electrocution arising out of increase in voltage due to a faulty transformer. 11. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir vide Order No. 454-F of 2019 dated 24.10.2019 has framed a policy for grant of ex-gratia relief in favour of civilians killed or injured, resulting in their partial or total disability in an accident attributable to the Power Development Department. As per the said policy in case of death, the amount of compensation of ex-gratia relief has been fixed as ₹ 10.00 lacs, in case of total disability the amount of compensation has been fixed as ₹ 7.50 lacs and in case of partial disability the amount of compensation payable has been fixed as ₹ 2.00 lacs. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has suffered 30% permanent disability which falls under the 6 WP(C) 2628 of 2019 category of partial disability, he is entitled to compensation in the amount of ₹ 2.00 lacs in terms of the aforesaid Government order. 12. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay an amount of ₹ 2.00 lac as compensation to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondents, failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of filing of the writ petition till the realization of the amount. 13. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge JAMMU 05.03.2025 Bir Whether order is reportable: Yes/No