High Court raps Haryana for insensitive attitude in compensation case

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, October 10

The implementation of the state litigation policy has come under scrutiny, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court making it clear that abdication of responsibility by the authority concerned in its execution was increasing the burden on the courts and the exchequer. The assertion came as Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj rapped the state for “insensitive attitude and lethargy” in a compensation case.

Objective of welfare policies defeated

Ministerial acts by public servants not only defeat the objective of welfare policies, but also compound the hardship and grief of the aggrieved. The same, thus, compels aggrieved to litigate for a relief for which he ought not to have filed a case.

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj

The matter was brought to Justice Bhardwaj’s notice after grandparents sought compensation following electrocution of a 15-year-old student. It was contended that their representation for compensation was declined on the ground that there was no lapse on the officials’ part.

The counsel appearing on the respondents’ behalf contended that during the course of hearing that DHBVN had already notified a policy on July 15, 2019, stipulating grant of compensation for fatal/non-fatal accidents on no-fault liability basis as well, subject to the incident occurring within the electrical network of the distribution licensee. He submitted that the petitioners’ claim would be considered and appropriate financial assistance released in case they approached the competent authority seeking compensation as per the notification. Justice Bhardwaj asserted the order suffered from illegality and miserably failed to refer to the notification providing for determination of financial assistance/compensation. The claim was declined for reasons that they were not negligent. Such “insensitive attitude and lethargy” shown by the respondents subjected the petitioners to unwanted litigation.

The notified policy provided for no-fault compensation solely on principles of strict liability. Negligence was not a pre-requisite to extend financial assistance and the respondent was liable to grant compensation. Justice Bhardwaj asserted: “Such ministerial acts by the public servants not only defeat the object of welfare policies, but also compound the hardship and grief of the aggrieved. The same, thus, compels aggrieved to litigate for a relief for which he ought not to have filed a case”

Justice Bhardwaj added that the litigation policy “repeatedly emphasised that entitled benefits to the beneficiaries should not be deemed as a matter of routine and as a measure of avoiding responsibility of taking a decision”.

The absence of a valid reason for consideration and non-consideration of its own policy was just another way of abdication of responsibility by the competent authority. Such attitude and approach by the authorities excessively increased burden not only on the courts but also on the exchequer. Disposing of the plea, Justice Bhardwaj ordered the setting aside of the impugned order, while making it clear that Rs 11,000 was to be deposited as costs by the distribution licensee to petitioners. A four-week deadline was also set in case the petitioners preferred a claim petition before the competent authority as per the policy.