Compensation for Electrocution Victim: Supreme Court Reduces Award from ₹1.25 Crore to ₹90 Lakh
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial judgment in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Naval Kumar alias Rohit Kumar, addressing the issue of compensation awarded for injuries caused due to electrocution from a high-tension wire. The case highlights the legal principle of vicarious liability of the State for negligence and the methodology for calculating just and reasonable compensation for a permanently disabled victim.
Background of the Case
On March 18, 2012, eight-year-old Naval Kumar alias Rohit Kumar accompanied his mother to the fields to collect vegetables when he accidentally came in contact with a high-tension (11 KV) live wire known as the Lahru-Chowari Line in Himachal Pradesh. He suffered severe burns and lost consciousness immediately. His mother registered an FIR, holding the State Electricity Department responsible for negligence.
The victim was taken to Referal Hospital Chowari and later referred to Dr. Rajendra Prasad Medical Hospital, Tanda. He underwent surgery on March 25, 2012, resulting in the amputation of both arms. He remained hospitalized until May 3, 2012, suffering 100% permanent disability.
His family spent over ₹2,00,000 on medical expenses, including medicines, travel, and special diet. The accident severely impacted his future, forcing him to discontinue studies despite being a brilliant student.
Legal Proceedings and High Court Judgment
The victim’s mother, acting as his natural guardian, filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 475 of 2013) in the Himachal Pradesh High Court, seeking ₹50,00,000 in compensation and further requesting directives for the maintenance of electricity infrastructure to prevent similar accidents.
The High Court held the State of Himachal Pradesh liable for negligence and awarded a total compensation of ₹1,25,00,000 under different heads:
- Future income loss: ₹90,00,000 (considering he would have earned ₹30,000 per month in the future)
- Loss of companionship and life amenities: ₹10,00,000
- Pain and suffering, mental distress: ₹10,00,000
- Attendant/nursing expenses: ₹10,00,000
- Medical expenses, artificial limbs: ₹5,00,000
State’s Appeal and Supreme Court Judgment
The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the High Court’s ruling before the Supreme Court, arguing that:
- The awarded amount was excessive and lacked supporting evidence.
- Compensation should be based on reasonable calculations rather than assumptions.
- The State accepted liability but sought a revision of the quantum of damages.
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, acknowledged the State’s responsibility and upheld the principles of vicarious liability. However, it found the High Court’s compensation excessive and made the following modifications:
- Reduced total compensation from ₹1,25,00,000 to ₹90,00,000.
- Set an interest rate of 6% per annum on the awarded sum.
- Directed the State to deposit the amount within three months.
Supreme Court’s Observations
- The respondent had suffered 100% disability, rendering him completely dependent on family.
- The future income estimation of ₹30,000 per month was reasonable.
- However, the additional lump sum awards for companionship, pain and suffering, and attendant care were excessively high.
- The revised amount would generate sufficient interest income for his lifelong care.
Key Takeaways
- State Liability for Negligence: Governments and agencies must ensure public safety in infrastructure management.
- Compensation Calculation: Awards must balance victim welfare and reasonable assessment.
- Interest-Linked Compensation: Courts consider interest earnings when awarding damages.
Impact of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s ruling will influence future cases involving government negligence, particularly in infrastructure maintenance. It sets a precedent for assessing compensation in personal injury cases involving severe disability.
Conclusion
The case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Naval Kumar alias Rohit Kumar reaffirms the judiciary’s role in balancing victim rights with legal prudence. While ensuring just compensation, the ruling also underscores the need for evidence-based assessment, preventing undue inflation of damage claims. The Supreme Court’s reduction of compensation to ₹90 lakh with interest ensures lifelong support for the victim while setting a reasonable legal standard.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: State of Himachal Pr vs Naval Kumar alias Ro Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 02-02-2017.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Compensation Disputes
See all petitions in Negligence Claims
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by J. Chelameswar
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments
See all posts in Accident Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
