HC censures DHBVN for 'regressive' approach to electrocution relief

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited for exhibiting a "lackluster and completely regressive attitude" in repeatedly passing mechanical orders on compensation pleas in electrocution cases. Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj of the high court also made it clear that such tendency was required to be curbed.

The court imposed Rs 25,000 costs on DHBVN’s executive engineer operation for passing orders in “a mechanical manner without any application of mind” and without taking into consideration the objectives of the government’s no-fault compensation policy.

The censure and the direction came in a case where the policy stipulating no-fault compensation in electrocution cases was alleged to have been conveniently ignored. Taking up the matter, the Bench ruled that the amount, directed to be deposited with the Haryana Legal Services Committee, might be recovered from the officer who passed the order.

“This court is being repeatedly approached by the claimant aggrieved of mechanical orders being passed repeatedly by the executing officers without any reference to or meaningful interpretations of the policy notified by the government, thus denying and depriving the victims of the compensation to which the law entitles them. Such a tendency shows a lackluster and a completely regressive attitude on the part of the authorities in shedding responsibility which needs to be curbed,” Justice Bhardwaj said.

Allowing the petition, he directed the release of “no-fault liability” admissible to the petitioner in terms of the policy dated July 15, 2019. The court also set a three-month deadline for the release of the benefits to the petitioner, making it clear that he would be entitled to 6 per cent interest from the date of filing the writ petition till disbursement. “The department shall be entitled to recover the interest liability solely from the officials responsible for causing the delay,” the Bench added.

In his order, Justice Bhardwaj added that the earlier order rejecting the claim did not mention the clause in the policy, which would disentitle the petitioner-claimant to the award of compensation and “what is the effect of a no-fault liability that has been fastened upon the distribution licensee”.

The matter was placed before Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench after petitioner Bharat Ahirwar filed a petition challenging order dated November 30, 2023, passed by DHBVN’s executive engineer operation, rejecting his claim for compensation. Directions were also sought for paying Rs 50 lakh compensation following his wife’s death. His counsel contended that the petitioner’s 29-year-old wife was electrocuted following which the relief was sought.