Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Single Bench of Justice M A Chowdhary, held that a civilian who sustains permanent disability following electrocution attributable to the negligence of an electricity department official is entitled to compensation under public law jurisdiction. The Court was considering a writ petition filed by a skilled welder who lost both forearms after climbing a high-tension electric pole at the request of a Power Development Department lineman, who had falsely assured him the power supply was disconnected. The Court directed the respondent authorities to pay total compensation of Rs. 54,49,500/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.

The writ petition was filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities and officials of the Power Development Department to pay compensation of ₹71,06,672 with interest at 9% per annum for injuries sustained by the petitioner due to electrocution. The petitioner stated that on 06.09.2012, while present at his welding shop in Village Daruie, a lineman of the department approached him requesting assistance to remove a bird entangled in a high-tension electric wire. The petitioner initially declined but later agreed after being assured that the electricity supply had been disconnected. While attempting to remove the bird by climbing a ladder and touching the pole structure, he received an electric shock as the line was live, resulting in severe burn injuries.

Also Read: Quarrel With Daughter-In-Law Alone Cannot Sustain Dowry Harassment Or Domestic Cruelty Charges Against In-Laws: Supreme Court

An FIR was registered at Police Station Samba under Sections 287 and 337 RPC and, after investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 287 and 338 RPC was filed against the concerned lineman. The petitioner was treated at District Hospital Samba and later at Government Medical College Hospital Jammu. Due to severe burn injuries, both forearms were amputated and a medical board certified him as suffering from 100% permanent disability. The petitioner placed on record qualification certificates, disability certificate, treatment bills, and other documents. The respondents contested the petition stating that the petitioner voluntarily climbed the pole without authorization and that the injuries resulted from his own negligence. They also relied on a government scheme providing limited ex gratia relief in electrical accidents.

The Court examined the maintainability of the writ petition and the issue of negligence. It observed that “the plea, with regard to non maintainability of the petition is misplaced, in view of law laid down by this court in cases of ‘Executive Engineer & Ors. V. Mohd. Ashraf Bhat & Ors.’… wherein it has been held that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain such petition and that under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur negligence is presumed when the instrument causing damage was under the control of the respondents.”

Addressing the facts surrounding the accident, the Court stated that “the facts that emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that petitioner, who had a welding unit, in presence of PDD Lineman Bishamber Dass climbed a HT Line pole to remove a stuck bird in the line… he received electric shock and burn injuries on his forearms, resulting into amputation of both of his hands, rendering him permanently disabled.”

On the question of negligence, the Court recorded that “so far as the negligence is concerned, this does not remain disputed question of fact in view of fact that a criminal case was registered for negligence and a charge sheet for this offence was also laid before the court of law against Lineman Bishambar Dass.”

The Court further noted that “the respondents have not even denied the presence of Lineman on spot and even if it is assumed that the petitioner had voluntarily climbed the pole but the same admittedly was in the presence of Lineman Bishambar Dass, who had not objected to it or restrained the petitioner from climbing the HT pole.”

Considering these circumstances, the Court recorded that “under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur negligence is proved… on the basis of the FIR registered at the local police station and the charge sheet arising out of it laid in the court for the negligence and causing injuries to the petitioner by Lineman Bishambar Dass.”

The Court also evaluated the impact of the injuries and observed that “the petitioner had been certified by the Board of Doctors to have suffered 100% physical disability… keeping in view that the petitioner had lost both of his hands in the unfortunate accident of electrocution, he can be stated to have suffered 100% functional disability and the loss of future income as well.”

Regarding assessment of compensation, the Court recorded that “the petitioner, having Diploma in Welding, can be stated to be a skilled person and the income which may have been notified in the year 2012 under the Minimum Wages Act… can be accepted as income of the petitioner.”

The Court further stated that “principles under the Motor Vehicles Act can be adopted” while determining compensation in cases of electrocution and permanent disability.

Also Read: 'Medical Services Is An Essential Service,': Kerala HC Directs State To Ensure Uninterrupted Medical Services In Government Medical Colleges Amid Faculty Strike

The Court directed that “the petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to the following amounts payable by the respondents for their vicarious liability.” It quantified the compensation under different heads including loss of future income, medical expenses, cost of artificial limbs, attendant charges, transportation and diet expenses, damages for pain and suffering, and loss of amenities of life.

“The petitioner is found entitled to a compensation of Rs.54,49,472/- (rounded of to Rs.54,49,500/-) payable jointly and severely by the respondents, for the disability caused to him in the electric accident, caused due to negligence of the Lineman Bishamber Dass.” It ordered that “the writ petition is, thus, allowed holding petitioner entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs.54,49,500/- along with simple interest @9 % P.A., with effect from the date of filing of this petition i.e. 23.09.2013, till realization of the amount. The writ petition is thus disposed of as allowed, accordingly, along with pending application(s).”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sheikh Altaf Hussain, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with Ms. Jagmeet Kour, Advocate

Case Title: Sham Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: JKLHC-JMU:658
Case Number: OWP No. 1337/2013 with IA No. 1840/2013
Bench: Justice M. A. Chowdhary