2025:HHC:27856-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2499 of 2021 Decided on : 18.08.2025 Master Piyush. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Roop Lal Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner, who is a minor, has approached this Court seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, from the respondent for the disability suffered by the petitioner purportedly on account of the acts of omission on the part of the respondent, as a result whereof the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27856-DB petitioner suffered electrocution on 29.12.2019 from a high tension wire I.e .1100 kv wire, Sub-Station Bodh (Jassur), Khushi Nagar, while playing on the lintel of his maternal grandfather’s house i.e. Ward No.6, Lambi Gali, Golu Mohalla, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, on account whereof, the petitioner is 70% permanently disabled. 2. The respondent-Board has emphatically denied any negligence on its part. In terms of the stand taken in the reply, the electricity line was laid/installed 40-50 years back, whereas, construction was recently raised on the property by the maternal grandfather of the petitioner by increasing the height of the existing property up to two storey and thus making the area vulnerable, which unfortunately resulted in the accident. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Board and having perused the documents appended with the pleadings, this Court is of the considered view that as seriously disputed questions of fact are involved in the petition, therefore, it is not possible for this Court to decide this lis under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The allegations and counter-allegations 3 2025:HHC:27856-DB will have to be proved by the parties by leading evidence and this is not possible here. However, as the factum of the minor petitioner having being electrocuted is not in dispute, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent- Board to pay an interim compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedy before a Civil Court. It is clarified that the amount of compensation that has been ordered by the Court, shall be taken into consideration, in case, in the Civil Suit, learned Civil Court grants any compensation to the petitioner. However, in case, learned Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, then the amount that has been ordered by the Court, shall not be recovered from him. 4. The petition is disposed of, in above-said terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 18, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)