LPA No. 208/2023 Page 1 of 4 Sr. No. 58 Suppl. Cause List. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No. 208/2023 CM No. 6261/2023 Union Territory of JK & Ors. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Ms. Rahella Khan, AC & Mr. Mohd Younus Hafiz, AC Vs. Lal Jani & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE O R D E R 20.02.2025 1. This intra-Court appeal by the Union Territory of JK & Ors arises out of an order and judgment dated 8th December 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“Writ Court”] in OWP No. 231/2011 titled Lal Jani & Ors. vs. State of JK & Ors. The impugned judgment is challenged by the appellants primarily on two grounds:- (i) That there was no evidence, oral or documentary, before the Writ Court to conclude that the death of deceased Alam Din Bara had occurred due to negligence of the appellants. (ii) That the manner in which the compensation has been calculated is not in consonance with the set parameters that are applied for assessing the compensation in such cases. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 12th June 2003, one Alam Din Bara got electrocuted when he accidently came in contact with an un-insulated Gay Wire which was tied to a tree by the appellants. The deceased was working in his agricultural field. With regard to the incident, a report was entered in the concerned Police Station and body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem. In the enquiry which was conducted by the Executive Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 21.02.2025 LPA No. 208/2023 Page 2 of 4 Engineer and forwarded to the Office of Superintending Engineer concerned, it was virtually admitted that there was negligence on the part of the appellants Department to take proper care of the Gay Line which was un-insulated. Thus, the opinion of the appellants themselves was that the gay-wire was tied to a green tree instead of being embedding to the earth. The respondents who lost their bread- earner in the accident caused due to the negligence of the appellants approached the respondents for payment of compensation. They were made to run from pillar to post. Enquiries after enquiries were conducted by the respondents and it was only in the year 2008, the appellants declined to accept their liability and accordingly informed the respondents. 3. Faced with the rejection of their claim, the respondents filed a writ petition before this Court. The Writ Court after having considered the rival contentions and the material on record came to the conclusion that there was not an iota of doubt that the death of the deceased Alam Din Bara had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the appellants in maintaining the electric wires. With a view to assess the compensation, the Writ Court purportedly applied the parameters as are applicable for assessing the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Writ Court accordingly held the respondents entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,95,600/- along-with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered view that the issue of negligence has been correctly determined by the Writ Court and the view taken by the Writ Court in this regard is unexceptionable. There is enough material on record which clearly demonstrates that the deceased Alam Din Bara lost his life due to electrocution which happened due to the negligence solely attributable to the appellants. However, we are inclined to accept the submissions made by Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, learned Sr. AAG that the compensation payable to the respondents has not been corrected assessed. The Writ Court has assessed the monthly dependency of the respondents as Rs. 12,000/- without indicating as to what was the income of the deceased at the time of accident. The Writ Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 21.02.2025 LPA No. 208/2023 Page 3 of 4 Court has also applied the age multiplier of 11 without indicating as to what age has been taken into consideration by the Writ Court. Viewed from any angle, the calculation made by the Writ Court is flawed and is not in tune with the parameters laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act. Indisputably, the deceased was a labourer working in agricultural field. Although, there is no averment by the respondents as to the income the deceased was earning at the time of accident, yet we cannot ignore the fact that even a labourer in the year 2003 was entitled to minimum wages of Rs. 110/- per day under the Minimum Wages Act. Apart from earning the aforesaid income, the deceased might have been earning something out of his agricultural pursuit. We also need to apply the loss of future prospectus, which in any case, cannot be less than 20 percent of established income. As per the post- mortem report, the age of the deceased is indicated as 40 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 12 ought to have been used. 5. Looking into the dependency of the respondents who are six in number, 1/4th of the income was required to be deducted on account of his personal expenses. We have, with the help of learned counsel for the parties applied all the parameters as discussed above, deriving inspiration from the compensation cases decided under the Motor Vehicles Act and are of the view that the respondents ought to be paid a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 10.00 lacs. Learned counsel fairly accepted the assessment for respondent. 6. Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, learned Sr. AAG could not point out any legal justification to deny this amount of compensation, but submits that for giving consent in the matter, he needs to consult the Administrative Secretary. We think that in the given facts and circumstances, no consent of Government is required. We have already come to the conclusion that compensation of Rs. 10.00 lacs in lump-sum would be fair and just compensation in this case. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal partially and reduce the amount of compensation to Rs. 10.00 lacs inclusive of all interest. 8. Let the appellants’ deposit a sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks. On deposit, 50% of the Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 21.02.2025 LPA No. 208/2023 Page 4 of 4 amount shall be released in favour of respondent No. 1 and rest of the amount shall be kept in FDR in the name of respondent No. 1 for a period of two years. We make it clear that in case the amount is not deposited within a period of four weeks, the amount shall became payable along-with interest @ 9% per annum to be calculated from today. 9. The appeal is disposed of. (PUNEET GUPTA) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 20.02.2025 Altaf Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 21.02.2025