1. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and its officials have approached this Court challenging an order dated 1.3.2016 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat awarding compensation of Rs.5,78,000/- to the first and second respondents1.
2. The claimants are parents of Danveer Singh and Shiv Shanker Singh. On 16.6.2014 at 6.30 a.m., both their aforesaid sons, while passing through the field of one Jagat Singh of Village Sarawa, came in contact with live 11 KVA electricity line which was lying snapped on the ground. According to the claimants, as a result of electrocution, Danveer Singh died on the spot, whereas their other son Shiv Shanker Singh sustained injuries. The claimants approached the Permanent Lok Adalat for award of compensation in respect of death of Danveer Singh and wherein, the impugned award has been passed. The Permanent Lok Adalat has decided issue no.1 relating to its jurisdiction to adjudicate such claim in favour of the claimants. The Permanent Lok Adalat held that the Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is engaged in distribution and supply of electricity. Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, a Permanent Lok Adalat is invested with the power and jurisdiction to conduct conciliation proceedings and in case of failure, to decide the dispute on merits in respect of public utility services, which include, interalia, the supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment. A dispute raising a claim for compensation alleging negligence on part of the Distribution Company in maintenance of the electricity lines meant for supply of power is thus a dispute coming under its jurisdiction. The aforesaid finding has not been challenged before this Court.
3. The second issue was whether the accident occurred as a result of the deceased coming into contact with live 11 KVA electricity line or not. Before the Tribunal, paper no.8/3 was a report of an administrative inquiry conducted by the department itself, in which it was found that the accident occurred as a result of electrocution and the deceased died on the spot. Paper no.10/4, the Panchayatnama and paper no.10/6, the case diary established the occurrence of the incident on 16.6.2014. Paper no.10, the post mortem report established that the death occurred as a result of electrocution. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded by holding that the accident occurred on account of the deceased coming into contact with live 11 KVA electricity line, which was lying snapped in the field. The Tribunal found negligence on part of the department in maintaining the supply line in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act and the Rules. The aforesaid finding, although is sought to be questioned in the writ petition, but at the time of hearing, Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners did not press this plea.
4. The third issue decided by the Tribunal is regarding the compensation to be paid to the claimants. The Tribunal held that the deceased was a young man aged about 18 years. At the time of accident, he had just passed Standard XII. Although, the claimants alleged that after completing his studies, he had qualified I.T.I entrance examination, and would have easily earned Rs.20000/- per month, but the Tribunal assumed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month. The Tribunal held that even an agricultural labourer, in these days earns Rs.200/- per day and thus, calculated his monthly income was assumed as Rs.6000/- per month and annual income as Rs.72,000/-. Out of it, 50% was deducted being the sum, which the deceased would have spent on his own self. The Tribunal further held that the principles laid down in the motor accident claim cases are to be applied. The age of the deceased being 18 years, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 and thus calculated the compensation as Rs.5,76,000/-. A sum of Rs.2000/- was added as funeral expenses, thus totalling Rs.5,78,000/-. The amount awarded as compensation has been assailed by contending that in the absence of any evidence on record regarding annual income of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in assuming his monthly income as Rs.6000/- per month. It is urged that the compensation awarded is excessive.
5. The amount of compensation is in the realm of law of torts. It is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum. The principle embodies the doctrine that the person entitled to damages should get such sum of money which would put him (his dependents) in the same position as he (they) would have been if wrong had not taken place.
6. In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka2 the Supreme Court held that a compensation which is just and reasonable should be awarded. A balance has to be struck between inflated claim and adequate compensation. It was observed thus:-
"We must emphasise that the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The 'adequate compensation' that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned."
(emphasis supplied)
7. The Supreme Court has applied the principles laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act in upholding grant of compensation in cases of fatal accidents or disabilities, even in cases not governed by the said Act. The second schedule to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 can thus serve as a guiding principle for determining the compensation.
8. Concededly, the deceased was a minor aged about 18 years at the time of accident. The case of the claimants was that he had qualified I.T.I examination and had a bright future. In cases where the deceased is a minor, the compensation is to be calculated on the basis of notional income. The second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates a notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum. In the case of Laxmi Devi and others Vs. Mohd. Tabbar3 the Supreme Court approved fixation of notional income of deceased aged about 35 years as Rs.36,000/- per annum by assuming that even unskilled labourer can easily earn Rs.100 per day. The High Court had refused to rely on the notional income of Rs.15000/- per annum stipulated in the second schedule on the reasoning that such amount was prescribed in the year 1994, whereas the accident occurred in the year 2004 and thus, keeping in mind the rate of inflation, the notional income was assumed as Rs.36,000/- per annum. Out of the said amount 1/3rd was deducted as the amount that the deceased would have spent on himself, thus determining the claimants dependency at Rs.24,000/ per annum. A multiplier of 14 was employed and accordingly, the amount of compensation was calculated as Rs.3,36,000/- (24,000/- x 14). To the said amount, compensation by way of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate was added, thus a total sum of Rs.3,45,000/- was held to be just and reasonable compensation.
9. In the instant case, the accident occurred on 16.6.2014. The deceased at the time of his death had passed Standard XII and is alleged to have qualified I.T.I. entrance examination. The Tribunal has assessed his notional income as Rs.200 per day. This in no circumstance can be held to be on higher side keeping in mind the fact that the Supreme Court approved the notional income of Rs.100/- per day in case of an accident that occurred in the year 2004. Even on a very modest estimation, keeping the rate of inflation since the year 2004 in mind, the estimation of income of Rs.200/- per day in the year 2014 was fully justified.
10. This Court further notices that the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16 which itself is on the lower side. In Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another4 the table relating to multiplier as given in paragraph 40, provides for a multiplier of 18 in case the age of the deceased is between 15 to 25 years. The same has been approved in a later decision of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another5 (vide para 43.1). Thus, infact, the proper multiplier which was attracted to the facts of the case is 18. The Court, therefore, finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is rather on a lower side.
11. In Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others6 the Supreme Court has held that keeping in mind the price index, a sum of Rs.25,000/- at least should be awarded as funeral expenses, whereas in the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- only.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Raman Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited7 has held that in case of electrocution the principles laid down for award of compensation in cases of medical negligence would hold good. In that case, the Supreme Court relied on the judgment in the case of Dr. Balram Prasad Vs. Kunal Saha and others8, wherein the Supreme Court had deviated from the multiplier method, in awarding a much higher compensation considered to be just and reasonable in a case of medical negligence. The observations made by the Supreme Court in case of Raman (Supra) are as under:-
"17. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has awarded compensation keeping all these aspects of the matter and has applied the guiding principle of multiplier method after adverting to the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr for the purpose of computation of just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant which method should not have been applied to the case on hand, particularly, having regard to the statutory negligence on the part of the respondents in not providing the safety measures to see that live electric wires should not fall on the roof of the building by strictly following the Rules to protect the lives of the public in the residential area. This Court in the case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha, has deviated from following the multiplier method to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant in a medical negligence case. The same principle will hold good in the case on hand too. The following case law is followed by this Court in the above referred case, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant.
68. ........ three-Judges Bench decision of this Court in Indian Medical Assn. v. V.P. Shantha, wherein this Court has categorically disagreed on this specific point in another case wherein "medical negligence" was involved. In the said decision, it has been held at para 53 that to deny a legitimate claim or to restrict arbitrarily the size of an award would amount to substantial injustice to the claimant."
(emphasis supplied)
13. If these factors are kept in mind, this Court notices that the award of the compensation of Rs.5,78,000/- on account of death of a young man aged about 18 years coming into contact with live 11 KVA electric wire on account of negligence of the petitioners, was infact a very modest sum.
14. In Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-II Vs. Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat and 4 others9 this Court noted that there was a circular issued by the department for award of Rs.1 lakh as compensation in case of death of a person on account of electrocution. In that case also a death of 30 years old man occurred as a result of electrocution. The Permanent Lok Adalat awarded Rs.2,50,000/- in addition to Rs.50,000/- paid by the department itself to the claimants. The Court noted with concern the fact that U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., which is an instrumentality of State, is shirking from its constitutional obligation and social responsibility in settling such matters outside the Court. The Permanent Lok Adalat even in the instant case has recorded a specific finding that all efforts to settle the dispute by amicable settlement had failed, compelling it to proceed to decide the matter on merits. The Court in that case directed the Principal Secretary, Energy as well as Chairman of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and the Managing Directors of all Four Distribution Companies to consider issuing proper guidelines providing for payment of fair and reasonable compensation in case of death, fatal accident or injuries, in supersession of the existing circular, so that the courts are not burdened with unnecessary litigation. It seems that no heed was paid to the aforesaid advice of the Court leading to the instant case coming before this Court, which in the opinion of the Court, should have been settled outside the Court.
15. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is unable to find any force in the contention of the petitioners that the compensation awarded is excessive. On the other hand, as noted above, the instant litigation could have been well avoided. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the claimants alongwith compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat for forcing the claimants to indulge in uncalled for and avoidable litigation. The entire amount, alongwith uptodate interest shall be paid to the claimants within one month, failing which the interest shall become payable at the rate of 14% per annum for the subsequent period.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 25.4.2016 SL