HC: Employees’ Act inapt for electrocution compensation
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, October 16
Almost a century after the Employees' Compensation Act came into force, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the principles for providing relief in it were entirely inapt and unsuitable for compensating in case of electrocution.
The Bench asserted that these principles were wholly improper and inappropriate indices to apply as adequate, just, fair and reasonable for compensation in case of electrocution. “The element and extent of human suffering, the future of children and the family are not factors enshrined in the cold schedule to the Employees’ Compensation Act,” the Bench ruled.
The ruling by Justice Rajiv Narain Raina came in a case wherein the DHBVN paid “some compensation” by calculating relief in accordance with the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. Justice Raina also enhanced the compensation from approximately Rs 5 lakh to Rs 35 lakh awarded to an electrocution victim’s kin.
Justice Raina asserted: “Human life has no price in terms of money. If it is extinguished by electrocution due to the negligence and carelessness of managers of power supply, cases of compensation arise.”
Referring to the facts of the petition filed by Rubi and other petitioners against Haryana and other respondents, Justice Raina asserted that the widow was 41 when the petition was filed in 2017 and the children 17 and 15. The family was living in a village in Bhiwani district, over which a 440-KV transmission line crossed.
Justice Raina noted that victim Mahabir met his unfortunate death on August 13, 2013, when he, along with his brother, was going to tend their farmland. His hand came in contact with an electricity pole through which current was passing after he tried to save himself from a buffalo, which appeared suddenly and aggressively. Unconscious Mahabir was taken to the Bhiwani general hospital by his brother and other villagers, where he was declared dead.
The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that Rs 5,42,240 was paid to the petitioners for the fatal accident by the DHBVN in terms of an out-of-court settlement scheme for pending court cases for compensation after applying provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Raina added that respondent DHBVN was licensee of the state to supply energy to consumers and the state was ultimately responsible for compensation, but through the DHBVN.
“The petitioners deserve to be compensated adequately for the loss of Mahabir. The petitioners are not bound by the compensation policy of the DHBVN. It can be only seen as an interim measure as the DHBVN is not the final arbitrator of just, fair and adequate compensation as defendant,” Justice Raina asserted.
The court ruled...
The element and extent of human suffering, the future of children and the family are not factors enshrined in the cold schedule to the Employees’ Compensation Act. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina, Punjab & Haryana HC
