Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Of J&K And Ors vs Saleema Begum And Ors on 1 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
S. No. 16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM No. 1547/2024 in LPA No.72/2024
UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND ORS. ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Faheem Shah, GA.
Vs.
SALEEMA BEGUM AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
O R D E R (ORAL)
01.07.2025
CM No.1547/2024
For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed and delay
of 497 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Application disposed of.
LPA No.72/2024
1. This appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and
Others, arises out from the order and judgement dated 09.09.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OWP
No.1042/2024 titled as “Saleema Begum and Ors. Vs. State of JK and
Ors.” whereby the learned writ Court has allowed the petition of the
respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.24,30,000/- along with interest @
6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.
2. Briefly stated facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that, on
24.07.2013 at about 7:40 pm, 11000 KV live electric supply line
1
accidently fell on the head of one Nazir Ahmad resulting in his on spot
death. The incident was attributed to the negligence of the appellants
and accordingly on the intervention of the people of the locality an FIR
was registered with Police Station Bijhama, Uri. Since the death of the
deceased had happened due to the falling of live electric supply wire,
as such, the next of the kins of the deceased approached this Court by
way of OWP No.1042/2024 seeking compensation from the appellants.
It was pleaded by the respondents (writ petitioners) that the deceased
was sole bread earner of the family, earning Rs.500/- per day while
working as a Carpenter. Without saying much in the petition, the
respondent herein claimed compensation of Rs.30.00 lacs from the
appellants herein on account of loss caused to them because of the
death of the deceased by negligence of the appellants.
3. Writ petition was contested by the appellants and in the objections
filed, a plea was taken that the incident which resulted into death of
deceased had happened due to the deceased himself fiddling with the
live electric supply wire and that no negligence was attributable to the
appellants.
4. The writ petition was considered by the writ Court and vide judgement
impugned the same was allowed and the compensation as indicated
above along with interest was awarded.
5. The impugned judgement of the writ Court is assailed by the appellants
primarily on the ground that the writ petition involved complicated and
disputed questions of facts which could not have been adjudicated
upon or determined by the writ Court in exercise of extraordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2
6. The impugned judgement is also challenged on the quantum of
compensation by contending that the writ Court has not followed the
guidelines for computing the compensation as laid down in the case of
“National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi” reported in AIR
2017 SC 5157. It was also pointed out by Mr. Faheem Shah, learned
counsel for the appellants that the respondent had not placed on record
any proof of income and the age of the deceased at the time of
accident. Our attention was drawn to the post-mortem report in which
the age of the deceased has been indicated as 45 years.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the
respondent had categorically pleaded in the petition that the deceased
was a Carpenter earning Rs.500 per day which fact was not disputed
by the appellants in their reply affidavit. Learned counsel, however,
could not show from the records any document to substantiate the age
of the deceased at the time of accident. Learned counsel would submit
that the judgement passed by the writ Court is in consonance with law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi,
therefore deserves to be maintained.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. We are of the considered opinion that the learned writ Court has rightly
concluded that the accident which consumed the life of the deceased
was attributable to the negligence of the appellants. The maintenance
of electric supply live lines is the duty of the appellants and more
particularly when the appellants are dealing with such hazardous
activity. The negligence in the accident that happens in relation to such
3
activity has to be presumed. We do not want to delve deep into this
aspect for the reason that the learned appearing counsel for the
appellants could not show any contrary material to indicate that the
deceased himself was a responsible for the accident which ultimately
took away his life. Apart from concurring with reasoning given by the
writ Court with regard to the negligence of the appellants we also find
that in the case on hand the principle of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
was attracted. The manner in which the accident is stated to have taken
place, coupled with the report of investigation conducted by the police
clearly indicates that there was negligence on the part of the appellants
in maintaining the electric supply lines.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we are of the
considered opinion that the writ Court has erred in computing a just
and fair compensation payable to the respondents. Admittedly as is
reflected in the post mortem report the age of the deceased was 45
years and in absence of any other proof on record the same should
have been taken as a basis for working out the compensation to be paid
to the respondents. As laid down in para 42 of Sarla Verma’s case
which is affirmed by Pranay Sethi, the multiplier applicable was 14
not 15 as applied by the learned writ Court. Similarly, the learned writ
Court has failed to appreciate that in the absence of any proof brought
on record by the petitioners with regard to the income of the deceased,
the income of deceased ought to have been determined on the basis of
minimum wages which were prescribed for a labourer at the relevant
point of time. The minimum wages as is contended by the learned
counsel for the appellants in the year 2013 was less than Rs.200, but
4
having regard to the facts and circumstances, we have taken minimum
wages as Rs.250/- per day. Similarly the future prospectus to be added
to the income of the deceased ought to have been 25% having regard to
the age of the deceased which at the relevant point was 45 years. The
cost of litigation in such matter is also not permissible for the persons
compensated by payment of interest from the date of filing of the
petition. Going by the aforesaid calculations, the total loss of
dependency comes to Rs.10,50,000/-. In addition thereto the
respondents herein were also entitled to following amounts:
i. Loss of estate 15,000/-
ii. Loss of consortium 40,000/-
iii. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
11. The total amount that shall be payable to the respondents would be
11,20,000/-. This amount shall be payable with an interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition, till its realization as is
provided by the learned writ Court. The compensation shall be paid to
the respondents in equal share.
12. Registry shall release the award amount in favour of the respondents
subject to verification and completion of other formalities. The excess
amount if any, with the Registry shall be returned to the appellants.
13. Disposed of.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
01.07.2025
Ishaq
Isaq Hameed Bhat
5
03.07.2025 11:20