HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR OWP No.424/2014 Pronounced on :09.05.2025 Mst. Haneefa W/o Late Gulzar Ahmad Dar R/o Bogund, Kulgam, Kashmir …….Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. G. N. Sofi, Advocate V/s 1. State of Jammu and Kashmir Th. Commissioner/secretary to Govt Power Development Department, Civil Sectt Srinagar/Jammu 2. Development Commissioner Power J&K Srinagar/Jammu 3. Chief Engineer Electric Maintenance and RE Wing Kashmir/Jammu 4.Superintending Engineer Electric Maintenance and RE Circle, Bijbehara 5.Executive Engineer Electric Division, Kulgam 6. Assistant Executive Engineer Electric Sub Division, Kulgam …..Respondent(s) Through:- Ms. Shaila Shameem, Assisting Counsel to Mr. All;a Ud Din Ganai, AAG CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. Through the medium of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to either grant compensation to the tune of ₹20.00 lakhs to the family of the deceased, Gulzar Ahmad 2 Dar (the husband of the petitioner), or to provide compassionate appointment to one of the family members in the respondents’ department, on account of the death of the said Gulzar Ahmad Dar due to electrocution. 2. The petitioner's husband, namely Gulzar Ahmad Dar, died on 04.101999 due to an electric short circuit. Consequently, FIR No. 207/1999 was registered at Police Station Kulgam for the commission of offences under Sections 287, 337, and 304 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The father and the wife of the deceased i.e., the petitioner approached the respondents, seeking compensation or compassionate appointment for a family member of the deceased. The Chief Electrical Inspector, J&K Government, through a communication dated 11.07.2001, informed Respondent No. 1 that the electrocution of Gulzar Ahmad Dar occurred due to a fault in the protection system. 3. It is submitted that respondent No. 1, through his Under Secretary, vide letter dated 20.08.2002, directed respondent No. 2 to provide a brief background note of the case. In response, the Administrative Office, Srinagar informed the Principal Secretary to the Government, Power Development Department, Srinagar, that no compensation has been paid to the family of the deceased, Late Gulzar Ahmad Dar. It was further requested that the engagement of his wife on a daily wage basis be kindly considered. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite repeated approaches to the respondents for the appointment of the petitioner, no action has been taken in her favour. It is contended that the petitioner's husband is survived by seven legal heirs, and the Government has sanctioned only ₹1 lakh as compensation. Furthermore, it is submitted that the respondents, in their internal communications, have acknowledged that the death of the petitioner's husband occurred due to the negligence of the concerned Department, as such, the respondents are under a legal and moral obligation either to pay a compensation amount of ₹20 lakhs to the petitioner or to provide employment to one of the deceased’s family members. It is further contended that the respondents have given fair compensation or job appointments to other people in similar situations, but unfairly treated the petitioner by denying them the same benefits. 5. Despite availing several opportunities by this Court, counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondents. This Court vide order dated 25.11.2021 directed the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 3.00 lac to the petitioner, however, the same till date has not been released by them. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The maintenance of electric supply line in the area is that of the State & its functionaries, they are under an obligation to maintain their electric lines along with all its equipment. A strict and absolute duty is 4 cast upon them to maintain the same. The transmission and distribution of the energy should be in a manner, so that the energy transmitted by them does not cause injury or loss to anyone who unknowingly gets trapped in it. Liability under law of torts is to compensate for the injury suffered by any person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on their part. An authority undertaking activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under law to compensate for the injuries suffered by any person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of those responsible for supply of electricity energy. It is very foreseeable risk in the nature of such an activity due to which such a liability is casted upon such a person or authority who undertakes such activity. It is known as “Strict Liability or ‘Absolute liability, therefore, the respondents are duty bound to compensate the petitioner for the death of her husband. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with this doctrine in M.C. Mehta & anr. vs. Union of India & ors., 1987 (1) SCC 395has held as under: - “Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on any one on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India reported as (1987) 1 SCC 395).” 9. The writ petition for granting compensation for the death of an individual or family member is no longer re integra as per the settled legal position. Reliance is place on the judgment of this Court in Mustaq 5 Ahmed & ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir &ors., reported in AIR 2009 JK 29 and Joginder Singh v. State of J&K & ors, reported in AIR 2011 (1) JKJ 722. This court, while dealing with the issue, it was held in Mustaq Ahmed's case, supra as under:- "13. The question that, therefore, falls for consideration is as to whether even in such type of cases, where death or injury is caused because of leakage of electric energy by the State engaged in supply of electric energy, which, no doubt, poses a potential threat to the safety of living beings, if not would be debarred from invoking extraordinary civil writ jurisdiction of the Court when the electrocution had taken place because of no fault of the victim”. 10. This Court in Mustaq Ahmed’s case has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SDO Grid Corporation’s case, AIR 2005 SC 3971, which is reproduced as under; “26. After referring to all the judgments, in our consideration view, the ratio of the judgment handed down by the Apex Court in SDO Grid Corporation's case, AIR 2005 SC 3971 (supra) relied upon by Mr. Thakur and also made the basis for rejection of all the three writ petitions filed by the appellants, does not whittle down the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board's case, AIR 2002 SC 551 as in SDO Grid Corporation's case, AIR 2005 SC 3971 (supra), the Apex Court considered the earlier decision rendered in M. P. Electricity Board's case and without affecting the principle of "strict liability" distinguished the said judgment on the ground that the question of negligence was determined by Civil Court. Therefore, it can be reasonably understood that M.P.Electricity Board's case has been distinguished on its own facts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not taken any contrary view from the one already taken with regard tot he doctrine of "strict liability" as discussed in extenso in the judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta's case, AIR 1987 SC 1086(supra)." 11. The admitted position is that the deceased-Gulzar Ahmad Dar died duet to electrocution at his residential house. The Police department registered an FIR No. 207/1999 at Police Station Kulgam under Sections 6 287,337,304 RPC against the functionaries and the concerned officials of the Power Development Department. 12. Admittedly, the conductor on 11 KV line crossing over LT distribution line, got snapped in the Village Bogund, Kulgam, Kashmir on 04.10.1999. This falling of LT Line, thereby charging UT Line of 11KV which caused burning the distressing sound. This caused panic among the villagers. Petitioner’s husband Gulzar Ahmad Dar tried to switch off his main services switch, but got electrocuted instantly. In such circumstances, the plea of the respondents that they are not liable to compensate the petitioner for the death of husband of the petitioner is without any substance. 13. The date of birth of the petitioner’s husband, late Gulzar Ahmad Dar, as recorded in the certificate issued by the Headmaster of Boys Middle School, Bogund, Zone Kulgam, is 01.01.1963. At the time of the accident, he was 36 years old. As per the communication dated 24.11.2005 from the Assistant Commissioner (G), Kulgam, he is survived by seven legal heirs, namely: his mother, his wife (the petitioner), and five minor children. 14. 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 7 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. The said order reads as under:- “Sanction is hereby accorded to the following amendments in the Jammu and Kashmir Book of Financial Powers:-In the Book of Financial Powers in Chapter 5.9 against S.No.~23-A(~), the column 'Extent' shall be recast as under: S.No Nature of Power To whom delegated Extent 1)To grant Ex-gratia Relief in favour of the employees of the POD, other persons or their heir and to the owners of Domestic Animals, who are electrocuted and die, or are rendered fully/partially disabled due to the negligence of the POD, subject to the conditions that: I) All the employees of the POD, whether regular ,DRW/Casual labour, Work Charged, Contingent paid etc., engaged in the generation, transmission or supply of electrical energy in the Department, who are killed, incapacitated, wholly or partially, during the course of discharging their bonafide and legitimate duties; ii) Civilians, killed or injured, resulting in their partial or total disability, subject to the explicit condition that the accident is not attributable to them, but to . the lapses, attributable to the POD, as verified by the Director, TTl & C; III) Domestic animals killed by electrocution, caused due to lapses, attributable to the Department and verified by the Director, DCP Full powers within the Budget Provisions with the following scales: A. Human Beings: I. In case of Death=Rs 10.00 lacs. II.Total Disability=Rs 7.50 lacs. III.Partial Disability=Rs 2.00 lacs In case of death of any employee, the Ex-gratia relief shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The payment shall be subject to the condition that the relief, granted by the Government under the Workman's Compensation Act, shall be adjusted while making payment of the Exgratia relief. B. Domestic Animals i. Cow ,bull, horse=Rs 20,000 ii. Sheep/Goat=Rs 5,000. 15. The petitioner has been left without any means and succour due to the death of her husband, who was the only earning member. She has 8 also been deprived of his love, affection and company. The State being a welfare State and framed policy of ex-gratia relief to the heirs of those, whose deaths occur due to electrocution, therefore, grant of compensation to the petitioner in terms of the policy would be just and proper to meet the ends of justice. The petitioner is, accordingly, held entitled to compensation of ₹10 Lakh in terms of the aforesaid orders as minimum compensation for the death of her husband. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner a sum of ₹ 10 lakh as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this petition. 17. Disposed of accordingly alongwith connected application(s). (Sindhu Sharma) Judge JAMMU 09 .05.2025 BIR Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No BIR BAHADUR SINGH 2025.05.21 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document