Allahabad High Court
Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 April, 2018
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10191 of 2009 Petitioner :- Shiv Ranshu Chhuneja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kr. Singh,S.N. Singh,Suresh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Singh,N. Misra, Subhash Gosain Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard Ms. Samridhi Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nripendra Mishra, Advocate for U.P. Power Corporation as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.
This writ petition has been pending since the year 2009 for a claim of compensation by the petitioner on having suffered substantial injury on account of electrocution as a result whereof he claims to be almost 100 per cent handicapped. The respondents 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 which includes the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation through its Managing Director have filed a short counter affidavit sworn by Mr. L.K.Khan, the then Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division-II, Vasundhara, District Ghaziabad and the affidavit has been affirmed on 15th March, 2009.
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said affidavit have been sworn on personal knowledge whereas paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the affidavit are based on record. To the said counter affidavit a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner denying the contents of the said counter affidavit to the extent indicated therein.
This permanent disability on account of the accident, which took place on 20th June, 2006 at about mid-day 12.30 P.M. was reported and a claim was set up with regard to compensation which the petitioner was entitled to receive.
It appears that father of the petitioner kept on moving applications reminding the authorities to award compensation as per his request and it also appears that the accident was reported to the police at the concerned Police Station. The petitioner at the time of accident was aged about 14 years.
Annexure 12 to the writ petition is a letter dated 6th August, 2007 dispatched by the Superintending Engineer to the Executive Engineer to submit his report with regard to award of compensation in accordance with the rules applicable so that the matter may be processed at the Divisional level and further action in this regard be taken. It appears that thereafter, the machinery was set into motion and a report was called for including that from the Chief Electrical Inspector who is the authority competent to deal with such matters, keeping in view the provisions of Section 161 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "2003 Act"). The said report, that was processed, has been filed as Annexure 13 to the writ petition, which mentions the entire details relating to the information received, medical examination of the petitioner and the report including the findings of the Chief Electrical Inspector.
The said report alognwith the entire documents was dispatched to the Managing Director, Pachimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.-respondent no. 6 and a copy of the same is Annexure 14 to the writ petition. The matter remained pending and since the petitioner or his father did not receive any response in spite of the matter having been processed, the petitioner was compelled to file writ petition no. 30589 of 2008 that was not entertained subject to the observation that the petitioner may file a claim before the Electrical Inspector in terms of Section 161 of 2003 Act. The judgment of the court is extracted herein under :-
"Petitioner's case is that on account of the fault of the Electricity Deptt. in maintaining the lines, the petitioner suffered serious injuries and he has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to award him compensation. Sri H.P. Dubey, learned counsel for Power Corporation states that the petitioner has remedy under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
In view of the remedy available to the petitioner, we do not find it a fit case for interference in this petition, especially, as the questions of facts are involved.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may file a claim before the Electrical Inspector under the provision of Section 161 of Electricity Act, 2003 or may seek any other remedy available to him."
It appears that the matter was pursued by the petitioner before the Chief Electrical Inspector and upon being processed, an order was passed by the Superintending Engineer on 13th December, 2007 awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- only on the strength of an outer limit of award of such compensation fixed in terms of the Circular dated 19.04.2006, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to the short counter affidavit.
This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 13.12.2007 and for a further mandamus commanding the respondents to award compensation of Rs.2 crores to the petitioner or such appropriate compensation on account of total disability suffered by the petitioner due to the said accidental electrocution.
From the pleadings on record what we find is that the main objection taken by the respondents is to the maintainability of the writ petition and secondly, about the quantum which the respondents alleged they are bound to adhere keeping in view the circular dated 19.04.2006 of the Corporation. The third argument, which has been advanced by Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the Power Corporation is that there is a scope for adjudication on account of contributory negligence of the victim and in such circumstances neither the writ petition should be entertained nor compensation should be awarded. He has relied on three judgments to substantiate his contention on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition namely the judgment in the case of Neetu Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2014 (9) ADJ 649, the judgment of the Division Bench dated 10th July, 2014 in Writ Petition No. 35095 of 2014 - Chokhe Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Ors. and the third judgment in the case of Karan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others in Writ Petition No. 6785 of 2015 decided on 10th February, 2015. He has further invited attention of the Court to another Single Judge judgment of Gauhati High Court in the Case of The State of Tripura & Anr. Vs. Sridhan Choudhury & Anr., AIR 2003 Gauhati 66 to buttress his submission.
The first issue, therefore, that we have to determine is as to whether the present writ petition can be entertained and maintained for the award of such compensation and for quashing of the order passed by the respondent - Corporation. We may put on record that the orders, which have been passed for awarding compensation is in the statutory exercise of power under Section 161 of the 2003 Act. Such an order being an order awarding compensation partakes the nature of not only an administrative order which touches quasi judicial functions as it is an order pertaining to award of compensation to a person having suffered an injury and also that virtually affects his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector can be made amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not only to be tested on the principle of administrative law and reasonableness but also on the ground of protection and enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is one of the primary duties of this Court as enshrined under the Constitution of India. A writ petition can be maintained before this Court for which we find ample support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Boad and others Vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and others, (2000) 2 SCC 465. Paragraphs 9 to 11 that are extracted hereinunder :
"9. Various aspects of the Public Law field were considered. It was found that though initially a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relating to contractual matters was held not to lie, the law underwent a change by subsequent decisions and it was noticed that even though the petition may relate essentially to a contractual matter, it would still be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The Public Law remedies have also been extended to the realm of tort. This Court, in its various decisions, has entertained petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution on a number of occasions and has awarded compensation to the petitioners who had suffered personal injuries at the hands of the officers of the Govt. The causing of injuries, which amounted to tortious act, was compensated by this Court in many of its decisions beginning from Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141 . (See also Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985) 4 SCC 577; Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 265; Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters (1989) 4 SCC 730; Saheli, A Women's Resources center v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi (1990) 1 SCC 422; Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P., AIR 1995 SC 117; P. Rathinam v. Union of India 1989 Supp (2) SCC 716; Death of Sawinder Singh Grower In re 1995 Supp (4) SCC 450; Inder Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 702; and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416.
10. In cases relating to custodial deaths and those relating to medical negligence, this Court awarded compensation under Public Law domain in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746; State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995) 4 SCC 262; People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 433 and Kaushalya v. State of Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 754; Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar (1991) 3 SCC 482; Jacob George (Dr) v. State of Kerala (1994) 3 SCC 430; Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37 and Manju Bhatia v. New Delhi Municipal Council (1997) 6 SCC 370
11. Having regard to what has been stated above, the contention that Smt. Hanuffa Khatoon should have approached the Civil Court for damages and the matter should not have been considered in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted. Where public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the violation of Fundamental Rights or the enforcement of public duties, the remedy would still be available under the Public Law notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for damages under Private Law."
The second issue with regard to determining such a question if there are disputed questions of fact, have to be taken into account keeping in view the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It is correct that a suit is not barred but it is also equally correct that award of compensation in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be undertaken provided there are no serious disputed questions of fact involved which, in our opinion, is clearly the case in the present writ petition. The reason is not far to see, inasmuch as, the petitioner in the writ petition has come out with a clear case in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition that he suffered the injury on account of the respondent corporation having not maintained the standards of installation while extending a High Tension line in accordance with the measurements prescribed for laying down of such overhead transmission line at a minimum distance, as prescribed under the Rules.
Aforesaid, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition are extracted herein under :
"3. That this writ petition is being preferred against the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by respondent no.4 whereby a sum of Rs.50000/- was allowed to be paid to th epetitioner as compensation for the serious injury caused on account of electrocution as a result of the petitioner coming into contact with snapped live wire of the electrical transmission line of the respondents and order dated 18.11.2008 passed by respondent no.3 which was communicated by Acting Director on the aforesaid date whereby a recommendation was made to the respondent no. 2, 4 and 5 for payment of the compensation thus noting can be done by this office. A true copy of the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by respondent no.4, communication order/letter dated 18.11.2008 passed by respondent no.3, copy of the claim petition made by the petitioner before the Electrical Inspector (respondent no.6), and as per order dated 30.07.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court and copy whereof are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.1, 2, 3 and 4 to this writ petition.
4. That the respondent no.2 has supplied the electricity to the citizen/ respondent to P.V.V.N. Housing society in callous and capricious manner ignoring the rules and the electric transmission line of high power was kept at a height of only 7 and 8 feet from the earth whereas according to the rules and regulations it should be kept at least at the height of 35 feet from the earth. The respondents has not adopted due precaution and safety measures in supplying the electricity to the residents of the society."
In response to the writ petition, a short counter affidavit has been filed without giving any specific reply to any of the paragraphs of the writ petition yet the respondents have denied their fault in any manner whatsoever in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, which is extracted herein under :
"10. That in this matter there is no fault on the part of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow. No staff or officer of the electricity department was responsible for this incident. It was an incidence which occurred due to the fault petitioner only. In spite of that compensation of Rs.50,000/- as prescribed in the office order dated 19, April 2006 and Rs.2,51,000/- as contribution of staff & officers of the circle was provided to the petitioner. Therefore petitioner was given more than the prescribed compensation."
The petitioner has replied to the same in paragraph 9 of the rejoinder affidavit, which is extracted herein under :-
"That the contents of paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit are not admitted being incorrect and wrong. It is incorrect to state that there is no fault on the fault of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow. It is also incorrect to state that no staff or officer of the Electricity Department was responsible for the incident. It is also incorrect to state that the said incident occurred due to the fault of petitioner. It is further submitted that an enquiry was made by Acting Director Vidyut Suraksha U.P. Government Lucknow and a report was submitted which has been filed as Annexure 13 to the writ petition. From the enquiry report submitted by Acting Director Vidyut Suraksha U.P. Government Lucknow. It is established that there was prima facie gross negligence on the part of Electricity Department. The contents of paragraph 17, 18 and 19 of the writ petition are reaffirmed as correct."
In order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether any of the facts have been disputed or not, it would be apt to mention that paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit quoted above has been sworn on the basis of record. The only record, which has been filed alongwith the short counter affidavit is the communication and the award of the maximum amount to which the petitioner was found entitled. No record has been filed alongwith the short counter affidavit to controvert the contentions which have been raised in the writ petition pertaining to the liability arising out of the allegation of negligence of the respondent-department. To the contrary what we find is that the report has been made available and filed alongwith the writ petition as Annexure 13 thereto, which is the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector that categorically records the entire incident of the accident having taken place when the petitioner had climbed up on a boundary wall to retrieve a cricket ball with which he was playing alongwith his friends. The report categorically states that the petitioner climbed up the wall and the High Tension wires of 11000 KV line, that was passing overhead, had sagged, as a result whereof the petitioner came into contact with the aforesaid loosened wire and met with the accident. The report does not only mention the happening as narrated, but it further goes on to record that this accident occurred on account of the clear negligence of the officials of the department who were enjoined with the duty to maintain the said High Tension line in terms of Indian Electricity Act, 1956 and the relevant provisions in relation thereto. The findings in the report are clearly to the effect that as a matter of fact, notice was not taken of the accident but later on a pole was installed in order to lift the sagging line which in turn, in our opinion, clearly demonstrates that the factum of loosened wires hanging at a height much below than what was required, clearly establish the negligence of the officials who are named in the said report and, therefore, there is no doubt that the said report was rightly made the basis for awarding compensation by the respondents themselves.
We are extracting the report, which is in vernacular hereinunder to remove any doubt of the translation of the gist of the said report indicated herein above :
^^vuqla/kku ,oa fy;s x;s c;kuksa ls Kkr gksrk gS fd 33@11 ds0oh0 lc Lvs'ku uhfr[k.M&2] bfUnjkiqje ls 11 ds0oh0 QhMj ua0 7 dh ykbu bfUM;k ewu flVh dh ckmUMªhoky ls yxHkx 0-602 eh0 Åij yVd dj >wy jgh FkhA fnukad 20&06&2006 dks mDr dkyksuh ds ikdZ esa [ksyrs le; nksigj yxHkx 12-30 cts dkyksuh ds cPpksa dh xsan ckmUMªh ds ikj pyh x;h ftls ykus ds fy, dkyksuh ds Hkou la0 22 fuoklh Jh fot; dqekj dk iq= f'kozka'kq ckmUMªh ij p<+k vkSj Åij tk jgh 11ds0lh0 ykbu ds lEidZ esa vk x;k rFkk fo|qr Li'kZ?kkr ls nq?kZVukxzLr gks x;k ,oe~ ------- fodykax gks x;kA if'ekapy fo|qr forj.k fuxe fy0 ds lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk nq?kZVuk dks laKku esa ugha fy;k x;k vfirq ykbu ds e/; ckmUMªh ds lehi ,d iksy yxkdj ykbu dks Å¡pk dj fn;k x;k gSA ;g nq?kZVuk fuxe ds lfEcU/kr mi[k.M }kjk viuh ykbuksa dks fu;ekuqlkj vuqjf{kr u fd;s tkus ,oe~ Hkk0fo0fu0 1956 ds fu;e 77 ¼2½] fu;e 90 ¼1½] fu;e 91 ¼1½ ds mya?ku ds dkj.k =qfViw.kZ vf/k"Bkiu ls ?kfVr gqbZ ftlds fy, mi[k.M vf/kdkjh Jh jktho dqekj xqIrk ,oe~ voj vfHk;Urk ¼orZeku esa e`rd½ rFkk ykbu eSu Jh jkeflag ftEesnkj gSaA nq?kZVuk dh fof/kor lwpuk u nsdj rFkk foLr`r fjiksVZ u Hkst dj fu;e 44d dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA lEcfU/kr ykbu esa fu;e 29] fu;e 50¼1½ ¼ch½] fu;e 90 ¼1½ ,oe~ fu;e 91 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr =qfV;ksa ds fuokj.k gsrq fu;e 5 ¼4½ ds vkns'k tkjh dj fn;s x;s gSa rFkk fu;e ---- ds vUrZxr dk;Zokgh djus gsrq funsZf'kr Hkh fd;k x;k gSAß The aforesaid facts therefore leave no room for doubt, that paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, which is alleged to have been sworn on the basis of record, is clearly a false averment and is contrary to the entire record of the respondents themselves. We deprecate the act of the concerned official who had sworn the affidavit in spite of the fact that when the counter affidavit was being filed, the report was already a part of the writ petition. There is no denial that Annexure 13 to the writ petition is not the report of the respondents. In such circumstances, the only possible and prudent conclusion that can be arrived at and the only inference, which can be drawn is that there is no dispute about the fact that the negligence was entirely attributable to the employees of the respondent-corporation and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. This fact having been established on the basis of record itself as contained in the report of the Electrical Inspector, which has nowhere been disputed by the respondents, therefore, does not give rise to any disputed question of fact which may be required to be gone into after leading any evidence for which a suit may have to be filed.
We, therefore, on the facts of the present case and for the reasons stated herein above reject the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has to file a suit for award of damages and compensation. We are supported in our aforesaid conclusion by the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner in the case of Yash Pal Singh (Minor) and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & 5 Ors. 2017 (6) AllLJ 49, which in tern refers to various Supreme Court decisions and rules that a writ petition would be clearly maintainable in such circumstances for award of compensation. We therefore, find that there is a later decision of a Division Bench which categorically and exhaustively deals with such a situation and, therefore, as against the Division Bench judgment in the case of Karan Singh & Anr.(supra), Chokhey Lal (supra) and that of Neetu Devi (supra) we hold that in such a situation, where facts are nowhere disputed relating to the factum of accident, a writ petition can be entertained following the ratio of the judgment in the case of Yash Pal Singh (Minor) & Anr. (supra) as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II Vs. Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat & 4 Ors. in Writ Petition under Articel 227 No. 4068 of 2015 decided on 17th September, 2015. We accordingly agree and approve of the said decisions and hold that in such a situation, a writ petition would be maintainable.
Having crossed the said hurdle, it is apparent that the argument on behalf of the respondents on the said count has to be rejected namely the maintainability of the writ petition on there being no dispute about the factum of the accident.
The next issue, which remains for adjudication, is about the award of maximum compensation as Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the Department is bound by the circular dated 19.04.2006. For this also we may refer to the same decisions that have been relied by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Corporation may have to be guided by its own circular and its authorities may have to adhere to the same, but when it comes to the matter of just and fair compensation, then the same cannot be binding on the Courts which can assess the same and proceed to award adequate compensation as has been held in the decision referred to in the case of Yash Pal Singh (Minor) & Anr. (supra) and the case itself.
Coming to the last part of the argument, which is in relation to the quantum of compensation, it is on record that the petitioner is the only child of his parents. His permanent disability is no where disputed and therefore, he has to be dependent life long on an income that may be sufficient to make his decent survival possible.
Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has invited the attention of the Court to the contents of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner to contend that the petitioner having acquired the qualification of Masters in Computer Application, has indicated his own achievements and his current income. He submits that not only this, his future capabilities also cannot be ruled out and in such circumstances, keeping in view the current income of the petitioner, as disclosed in the said affidavit, he will be able to successfully meet the day-to-day expenses as well as expenses that are required for his survival.
We have perused the said affidavit and what we find therefrom is that on account of such disability having been suffered by the petitioner at the age of 14 years, his entire educational career was obstructed to the extent that he was unable to pursue better and higher studies of which he was capable of keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has acquired the qualification of Masters in Computer Application with Honours in First Division from the Integral University at Lucknow. Thus, the capability of the petitioner cannot be doubted and therefore, a presumption can be raised about his future career having been marred on account of the accident. It has also been highlighted that the parents have also lost income, inasmuch as, it was the income of the mother of the petitioner, who was running coaching classes and home tuition had to devote all her time with the petitioner and her permanent income was blocked substantially. He then submits that the petitioner's father is in a precarious health condition.
The following chart with supporting material has been given in respect of the medical expenses of the petitioner:
Limbs Expenses (Otto Bock) Rs.8,30,000/-
Hospital Bills (approx.) (Apollo Hospital) RS.9,89,553/-
Hospital Bill (Sir Ganga Ram Hospital) Rs.4,63,769/-
Physiotherapy (approx.)(Rs.200 per day, 4 years) Rs.2,00,000/-
Other Miscellaneous Charges Rs.65,000/-
Total Rs.25,49,003/-
Not only this. it has been indicated that if the petitioner has to undergo plastic surgery, he would require an approximate amount of Rs.12 lacks in addition to the aforesaid expenses for meeting his medical expenses.
Lastly, he comes up with a plea that he had to take loans in order to meet the expenses including his medical expenses, which were to the tune of Rs.4 lacks, Rs.4.5 lacks and Rs.2.20 lacks. This along with interest has accumulated to Rs.15 lacks.
Over and above, the expenses of engaging a Helper and incurring expenses on conveyance have also been stated in the supplementary affidavit.
We have considered the submissions raised and in order to construe as to what should be an adequate, just and fair compensation, we may refer to the procedure that can be safely followed in such cases where the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yash Pal Singh (Minor) & Anr. (supra) has evolved a method of calculation after relying on a couple of decisions of the Apex Court in paragraph 59 to 66 of the said judgment that is extracted herein under :
59. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 14046 of 2012 (O&M) - Raman v. State of Haryana decided on 02.07.2017 and argued to pay the compensation in light of the above judgment. He has further relied upon another judgment i.e. Naval Kishore Kumar v. State of Himanchal Pradesh reported in in which approximately 1.25 Crores has been awarded to the petitioner in the similar matter. State of Himanchal Pradesh had preferred Civil Appeal No. 1339 of 2017 (State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Nawal Kishore) in which Hon'ble the Apex Court reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1.25 Crores to Rs. 90 lakhs considering the amount to be on higher side.
60. We have gone through the relevant provisions regarding assessment of compensation to be paid to the injured in the case of accident or electrocution in similar matters. As discussed, there are two formulas (1) Marginal Propensity to Save (MPS) and (2) Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC). Meaning thereby, we can assess the income of the injured in case he is employed after a reasonable majority age and gain something in future and second formula relates to the method of calculation regarding minimum amount required to be expended to protect the life of the injured. Spending multiplier (also known as fiscal multiplier or simply the multiplier) represents the multiple by which GDP increases or decreases in response to an increase and decrease in government expenditures and investment. It is the reciprocal of the marginal propensity to save (MPS). Higher the MPS, lower the multiplier, and lower the MPS, higher the multiplier. The spending multiplier is closely related to the multiplier effect. Assume that households consume 80% of any increase in their income and that the government increases its expenditure by $20 billion. Any government expenditure is actually income of households in the form of wages, interest, rent and profit. Since MPC is 0.8, households will consume $16 billion of the increased income (=0.8 × $20 billion). The $16 billion increase in consumption will trigger second round of increase in incomes (for people associated with production of the consumed products and services) which in turn will trigger second round of consumption amounting to $12.8 billion (=0.8 × 0.8 × $20 billion), and so on. The resulting effect is that the GDP increases by a multiple of initial increase in government expenditures. This multiple is the spending multiplier. A decrease in government expenditures decreases GDP by a multiple in the same fashion.
61. Where, MPS stands for marginal propensity to save which is the percentage of any addition in income which households are going to save and MPC stands for marginal propensity to consume and it is the percentage of any addition in income which households are expected to consume.
62. By definition, MPS + MPC = 1 and MPS = 1 - MPC.
63. We are of the view that assessment in the light of income is a presumptive method and if it is taken into account then from minimum wages to highest paid salary may be available and it would be very difficult to assess at this juncture. The calculation in the light of minimum expenditure to be incurred on the maintenance of the life of the petitioners is a reasonable amount (minimum required in our view) is about Rs. 10,000/- per month and calculating the annual expenditure, it comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- per year and expectancy of life minimum further 50 years. The multiplier for calculation of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners would be 10,000 × 12 × 50 = 60,00,000/- each.
64. The petitioners are also entitled to standard damages towards the following heads--
I. Towards loss of companionship, life amenities and loss of pleasure.
II. Pain and suffering including mental distress, trauma, discomfort and inconvenience.
III. Expenditure to be incurred towards the attendant/nursing expenses.
IV. Expenditure to be incurred for securing artificial/robotic limbs and medical expenses.
65. Since the power corporation is working as an agent of the State of U.P. for providing electricity, we are of the view that the State of U.P. is jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation and for taking safety measures. It is also necessary in furtherance of the object to provide just compensation and take security measurements by the instrumentalities of the State.
66. In light of the above submissions and keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and balance to be struck between just compensation and other compensations, we are of the view that beside payment of a reasonable monetary compensation in the form of damages and other ancillaries, incidental matters, certain directions may also be given to the respondents regarding maintenance and safety measurements to be taken by the electricity department either to raise the height of the offending transmission line above the abadi for by means of any safety measurement, to make the high tension line safe and render them electrically harmless and take them beyond the reach of man and kids. We are of the view that following directions would sub-serve the purpose--
i. On the principle of joint and several liability, the respondents are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation awarded in this petition.
ii. To secure the financial and monetary future of the minors Yash Pal Singh and Ankit Kumar Yadav, it is directed that the respondent U.P. Power Corporation Limited would pay 60 lakhs compensation immediately for loss of enjoyment of life, trauma suffered and to act as a guard against neglect and dependence on others, loss of future employability and the agony of future, paid and mental shock 50% of this amount will be deposited in a fixed deposit account in the name of the petitioners separately under joint guardianship of the parents with the petitioners (separately) in a nationalized bank preferably State Bank of India, Lucknow. The amount is directed to be deposited within two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the amount will carry 6% simple interest per annum till deposit in the bank. The amount awarded under this head will be available to the petitioners on attaining the age of majority.
iii. To meet out the running expenditure at present and daily expenses/attendant or family help or any labour, 50% of this amount for each petitioner is required to be invested in a nationalized bank, State Bank of India, Lucknow, to earn interest on long term fixed deposit. The interest so earned per month on this fixed deposit amount shall be credited to the Saving Bank Accounts of the petitioners with natural guardianship and credited to these accounts. The amount of interest so accrued against these fixed deposits shall automatically be transferred in the Saving Bank Accounts of the petitioners which are to be opened in the same branch in the name of the petitioners operated jointly by the parents and be paid on monthly basis to be used and expended for the care of the petitioners by the parents for educational expenses, nutritious food, cost of the attendants. Respondents are directed to pay this amount within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the amount will carry 6% per annum simple interest till it is deposited in the bank accounts.
iv. The Chairman/Managing Director of the Department, with consultation and assistance of the Director General of Health Services, U.P., Lucknow, may also consider the case for immediate medical treatment of the minor petitioners to provide them artificial/robotic limb.
v. Respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four lakhs) immediately within two months to the natural guardians of each of the petitioners for trauma, mental shock, pain and agony caused to them.
vi. Each petitioner is entitled to have cost of litigation quantified to Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousands) payable to the guardians of the petitioners.
vii. It would be better to provide that since the Court has awarded a reasonable monetary compensation on the principles of both strict and vicarious liability and tortuous liability based on negligence, it is directed that no civil suit would lie claiming further compensation with regards to this incident in future in any Court.
viii. Respondents are directed to immediately make some safety measures regarding high tension lines transmitting above or near abadi to make it safe and render them electrically harmless to habitation and take them beyond the reach of man below or to device such other alternatives so as to bypass the colony like the present abadi land in the State of U.P. For the purpose, the Managing Director of the electricity department by constituting a team of experts, engineers of the department may obtain a report and take such remedial measures which are required to meet out and avoid such type of electrocution.
ix. The entitlement of compensation as provided above is individual (per petitioner) and both the petitioners are entitled for above compensation separately."
In the present case, the first thing that has to be addressed to is that the petitioner has received only Rs.50,000/- way back in the year 2008. The accident took place in the year 2006 when he was 14 years of age and was pursuing his educational career. In the past 12 years, by the time, this writ petition has been taken up for hearing, the petitioner has pursued his educational career and after having successfully acquired the degree of Master of Computer Application has also been engaged himself in private job. The security of such jobs, is amenable to the choice of the employer and in the aforesaid background, since the date of the accident up to the date when he started earning in 2013, it is obvious that the petitioner was not earning in those 7 years. We, therefore, for the said entire period till he obtained a job in 2013 which is currently giving him Rs.39,000/- per month, we find that the petitioner is entitled to at least Rs.10,000/- per month for aiding him through a Helper as has been provided for by the Division Bench in the case of Yash Pal Singh (Minor) & Anr. (supra). On a simple calculation, this would be Rs.1,20,000/- per annum for seven years which would come to Rs.8,40,000/-.
The petitioner's earning capacity has been disclosed but in a private job. Nonetheless, his full earning capacity stood diminished on account of his physical disability as disclosed. However, in the background that the petitioner has been able to acquire a qualification and is earning, it would be appropriate to consider the adjustment of such earning while calculating any future benefits to which he may be entitled. Coupled with this, the longevity of life of an average Indian citizen for the time being, as has been assessed in different cases by the Apex Court as well as by the Division Bench in the case of Yash Pal Singh (Minor) & Anr. (supra) can be safely construed to be at least 70 years. In such circumstances, the question as to whether the petitioner would continue to earn the same amount for some time keeping in view his physical disability cannot be possibly ruled out and, therefore, a minimum, just and fair compensation has to be awarded to the petitioner on the presupposition that if he looses his job altogether then a minimum sustenance allowance should be made available to him in order to ensure his survival and also in view of any loss of dependency, which may likely accrue as he has no other source of income. Consequently, we find that the ratio in the case of Yash Pal Singh (Minor) & Anr. (supra) can be safely allowed to operate on the facts of the present case as well apart from his medical expenses as well as other ancillary expenses to which he may be found entitled. The medical expenses as disclosed above, indicate provisions of artificial limbs and a continuous course of physiotherapy in order to keep the petitioner physically fit apart from hospital bills and the loans taken have been indicated by the petitioner. In the above circumstances we find that a consolidated sum of Rs.25 lacs be awarded to the petitioner in lieu of medical expenses.
Coming to the issue of running expenses of the petitioner, since the petitioner himself is now engaged and is earning then in the said background, the minimum expenses in the event of loss of total earning has to be construed in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the formula adopted in the case of Yash Pal Singh (Minor) & Anr. (supra) of giving at least Rs.10,000/- per month calculating the longevity of his life upto 70 years would be a just and fair calculation and we award compensation accordingly. The petitioner for the time being is approximately 26 years of age. Thus, he would have a life expectancy of 44 years and consequently a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- multiplied by 44 would be a just and fair compensation in order to enable the petitioner to meet his usual normal expenses in the light of what has been stated above. This would come to the tune of Rs.52.80 lakhs.
Adding all the three amounts as indicated above, the petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to a total amount of Rs.86,20,000/-.
Accordingly we allow the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to make available the entire amount to the petitioner as above within three months from today. The payment shall be made by the respondents accordingly and any delay in payment would carry 9% simple interest per annum on the unpaid amount.
We may make it clear that we have passed the order on the peculiar facts and nature of the physical disability of the petitioner in this case and also keeping in view the law referred to by the Division Bench in the case of Yash Pal Singh (Minor) & Anr. (supra) as well as the other decisions of the Supreme Court referred to therein.
There is one more direction which deserves to be given before parting with the case namely the direction already issued by the learned Single Judge in the case of Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II (supra). The direction given by the learned Single Judge of this Court is as follows :
"This Court considers it desirable that this judgment be communicated to the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, the Principal Secretary, Energy as well as the Chairman of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and the Managing Director of all four Distribution Companies so that they consider issuing proper guidelines providing for payment of fair and reasonable compensation in case of death, fatal accident or injuries, in supercession of the existing Circular. The Registrar General is directed to take necessary action in that regard, by sending a copy of this order to each one of them. It is expected that all concerned shall ensure compliance of the observations made above, in its true letter and spirit."
We, therefore, while allowing this petition, direct the Chairman of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and Managing Director of all four Distribution Companies as well as the Principal Secretary, Energy, Government of Uttar Pradesh to issue such appropriate circular in the light of the observations made hereinabove and the judgment of learned Single Judge extracted hereinabove, within a period of three months. The Chairman of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. as well as Principal Secretary Energy shall file an affidavit in compliance of this direction and the matter shall be listed after three months before the appropriate Bench to ensure compliance thereof.
The learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this decision to the concerned Secretary for compliance.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 10.4.2018 KA