IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2059 of 2022 Decided on 17th September, 2025 Kamal Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2 to 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued thereby directing the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner, keeping in view that due to the accident earning of the petitioner has been affected and keeping in view the disability and the fact that he will require more money for continuing his treatment/surgery.” 2. The petitioner has approached this Court, praying for compensation on the ground that as the petitioner has suffered 2 injuries on account of the acts of omission of the respondent- Board, therefore, he be compensated in terms of the prayer made in the petition. According to the petitioner, he was working with NHPC as a labourer. On 02.06.2018 the petitioner was on his way to duty, when at around 8:45 A.M., the petitioner was electrocuted as he stepped upon a broken electric wire. He was taken to the hospital for treatment by the nearby public. According to the petitioner, he has suffered major injuries on account of the said incident and, therefore, he approached this Court for the payment of compensation in the light of the disability suffered by him which is stated to be to the extent of 16%. 3. The reply filed by the respondent-Board demonstrates that in terms thereof, the alleged accident occurred as the HT wire was broken due to heavy thunderstorm nearby Trimbli. The broken HT line was isolated from Simni T-off immediately, but yet the unfortunate incident took place. As per the respondents, the accident was on account of the negligence of the petitioner, who himself despite knowing very well that there may be some kind of risk near the broken electricity wire, instead of reporting the matter to the local authorities, was negligent in 3 crossing the area. The prayer made in the writ petition has been resisted and it has been averred that the petition has been filed just to grab undue compensation. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that though it is not in dispute that the petitioner was electrocuted on account of the HT wire which had fallen down, but yet, because, there is a dispute with regard to the mode and manner in which the accident took place, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, this petition is disposed of with the direction that as an interim measure let the Board pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.2.5 lac and for the remaining amount, the petitioner may approach the appropriate Fora including Civil Court, if so advised. Ordered accordingly. 5. This petition is disposed of with the direction that on account of the injuries that have been received by the petitioner as a result of his electrocution, the respondent Board shall pay an amount of Rs.2.5 lac to him as compensation which shall be interim compensation and for the balance, the petitioner may approach the appropriate Fora including Civil Court, if so advised. It is further observed that in case the petitioner files any 4 proceedings and the amount of compensation is in excess of Rs.2.5 lac, then, this amount shall be adjusted towards the total compensation amount. However, in case, either the amount assessed is less than Rs.2.5 lac or the Fora come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for his compensation, then also, the amount ordered by this Court shall not be demanded back from the petitioner by the Board. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 17, 2025 (Vinod)