Supreme Court
awards compensation of Rs.1.20 crore to a boy electrocuted due to negligence of
Himachal Pradesh Government
Naval Kumar
alias Rohit Kumar, an 8 years old boy, on 18.03.2012 at about 3.30 p.m., accompanied
his mother to the fields to collect “Saag” where he got electrocuted with a
high tension live wire (11 KV) commonly known as Lahru-Chowari Line. He
received grievous burn and other injuries and became unconscious. On the same
day, FIR was registered at the instance of the mother of the respondent. He was
taken to the hospital. Both arms were amputated. He suffered 100% disability.
During the course of hospitalization, his family had to incur expenses
exceeding Rs.2,00,000/- including medicines, taxi charges, attendant charges,
special diet charges etc. He became totally dependent upon family members even
for day-to-day activities for his entire life. He was throughout brilliant
student in his studies and had to discontinue his studies after this
unfortunate incident.
The boy, through
his mother and natural guardian, namely, Smt. Lata Devi, filed writ petition
being W.P. No. 475 of 2013 in the Himachal Pradesh High Court against the State
Government claiming a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under various heads. He also
prayed for a direction to the authorities to install and maintain all the
electricity wires, conductors, apparatus etc. strictly in accordance with the
Electricity Act, Rules, Regulations etc. so that no such untoward incident
would take place in the future.
The High Court,
by judgment dated 09.01.2015, allowed the writ petition and awarded a
compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/- under different heads to the boy.
Against the said
judgment, the State Government filed appeal in the Supreme Court, being
SLP (C)
No.9471/2015 (later converted to Civil Appeal No.1339/2017) titled as ‘State of
Himachal Pradesh vs Naval Kumar @ Rohit Kumar’.
The Supreme
Court (Bench of Justices J.Chelameswar and A.m.Sapre) by its judgment dated 2nd
February 2017 endorsed the view of the High Court that the incident in question
occurred due to negligence of the State and its authorities and hence the State
was vicariously liable to compensate the boy for the losses sustained by him;
that having regard to the family background of the respondent and further
respondent’s excellent performance as a brilliant student in studies, he would
have easily earned Rs.30,000/- per month in his life. However, the Supreme
Court rejected compensation under some heads as being excessive and after taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case such as the boy’s family
background, his age (8 years), nature of permanent disability suffered by him,
his performance in studies, the determination of monthly/yearly income made by
the High Court, expenses incurred and all the relevant factors, which are
usually taken into account in awarding compensation to the victim, granted a total
lumpsum compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- (Rs. Ninety lacs) together with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the filing of the writ petition in High
court (in place of Rs.1,25,00,000/- awarded by the High Court).
Supreme Court
observed that “The award of Rs.90,00,000/- together with interest payable at
the rate of 6% p.a., in our view, would fetch sufficient regular monthly income
to the respondent by way of interest alone, if the awarded sum is deposited in
the Bank and would thus take care of respondent’s upbringing and other needs
for the rest of his life. The award of compensation determined by us is just
and reasonable compensation payable to the respondent”.
