Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anshu vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 March, 2026
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-17880-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.03.2026
Anshu
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 24.02.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 16.03.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 16.03.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not Applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Mittal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate with
Mr. Vicky Chauhan, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
*****
VIKAS SURI, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioner – Anshu, who is stated to have
suffered permanent disability, at the tender age of about 6 years, as a
result of coming in contact with a 11 kV Nawadi DS line, operated and
1 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:56 :::
-2-
CWP-17880-2023
maintained by respondent No.3-distribution licensee, namely Dakshin
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Nigam’).
1.1 Through the instant petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks
award of compensation to the tune of `2 Crore, besides challenging the
instructions/policy dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure P-8) to the extent it
prescribes uniform norms for providing compensation to all categories of
victims of accidents caused by electrocution, including children, and to
the extent it applies the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act,
1923 (for short, ‘Act of 1923’) to children of age less than 16 years; and
has also impugned the order dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure P-10) whereby
compensation of `18,92,311/- was sanctioned under the supra
instructions, to the extent that it does not include compensation under the
heads like future prospects, inflation, past and future medical expenses,
mental harassment, physical pain, loss of marriage prospects, expenses for
exclusive caretaker, etc.
2. Succinctly, a High Tension (HT)/ High Voltage (HV)
(11000 volts) electric line (wire) passes in front of the house of the
petitioner. Such HT/HV lines are used to distribute power from sub-
stations to local, pole-mounted transformers, which step the voltage down
for consumption by homes and businesses. The father of the petitioner had
requested the authorities a number of times to shift the High Tension (HT)
11 kV line away from his house, however, no heed was paid to the said
requests. Even the coverings of the said wires, owing to weathering, were
damaged over a period of time and the request to the department to
replace the same did not bear any fruit.
2 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-3-
CWP-17880-2023
2.1 On 25.01.2022 at around 3:00 p.m., the petitioner was
playing on the terrace of the house. She heard a sound, which lured her
towards the balcony; and the petitioner ran towards the sound’s source,
i.e. towards edge of the balcony. The aforesaid 11 kV HT line ran in front
of the house of the petitioner, almost touching the grill of the house. Most
unfortunately, the petitioner came in dangerous proximity to the said high
tension wire running precariously close to the balcony and suffered severe
burn injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner was immediately taken to Soni
Devi Hospital, Neemrana, Rajasthan, from where, after being provided
initial treatment, she was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh on
26/27.01.2022 and was admitted in the emergency ward on 27.01.2022 at
around 5.00 PM. The nature of injuries received by the petitioner were
such that during her treatment at PGIMER, her right arm was
disarticulated/amputated from her right shoulder and there was
contracture of her left hand’s ring and little fingers. Resultantly, on
account of amputation, the petitioner suffered 92% permanent disability,
being a case of locomotor disability. The disability certificate dated
20.08.2022 issued by the Medical Authority, Mahendragarh, Haryana has
been placed on record as Annexure P-4.
2.2 The father of the petitioner ran from pillar to post before
various authorities and also filed criminal complaints against the
respondent authorities, which did not yield any immediate result or relief
in the form of interim financial assistance. After persistently following up
the matter, FIR No.0067 dated 01.03.2022 was registered under Section
338 IPC at Police Station Ateli, District Mahendragarh.
3 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-4-
CWP-17880-2023
2.3 The petitioner also approached this Court through her natural
guardian, by way of writ petition, bearing CWP No. 22063 of 2022,
praying for compensation of a sum of Rs.2 crores to the petitioner. Upon
notice of the said petition, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents contended that the incident occurred on 25.01.2022 and the
policy dated 15.07.2019 notified by DHBVNL relating to compensation
to the victims of fatal/non-fatal accidents was in force at the relevant time
and hence, in the event of the petitioner submitting her claim before the
competent authority as per the said policy, the same shall be considered
and an expeditious decision in terms of the policy ibid shall be taken
thereon. The said contention/offer was accepted on behalf of the petitioner
without prejudice to her rights. Accordingly, with the consent of the
parties and without prejudice to their respective rights or commenting
upon the merits of the case, liberty was granted to the petitioner vide order
dated 23.09.2022, to approach the respondent authorities for seeking
disbursement of compensation in terms of the applicable policy. It was
further stipulated that in the event of filing of such claim/representation
by the petitioner, the same shall be decided expeditiously, preferably
within a period of 4 months from the date of filing of such
claim/representation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned.
2.4 In deference to the order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-7)
passed by this Court in CWP-22063-2022, the petitioner moved a
representation dated 19.12.2022 (Annexure P-9), and the respondent
authorities, vide order dated 13.02.2023, awarded compensation of
4 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-5-
CWP-17880-2023
Rs.18,92,311/- in favour of the petitioner, in terms of the policy dated
15.07.2019. The petitioner received the aforesaid amount under protest
and the said amount entirely stands deposited in five separate fixed
deposit accounts (FDRs).
3. The petitioner still feeling aggrieved by the inadequacy of
compensation awarded by respondent No.3-Nigam, has approached this
Court by way of the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the amount of
compensation payable under the policy dated 15.07.2019 is inadequate
and is only a fraction of the liability that ought to be fastened upon the
tortfeasor, i.e. the Nigam in this case. The awarded amount is far from
being just and fair compensation for the damage suffered by the petitioner
on account of negligence and malfeasance of the respondent Nigam. It
was further submitted that the respondent Nigam cannot take refuge under
the instructions dated 15.07.2019, to avoid or curtail its liability under
public law.
4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the
policy dated 15.07.2019 itself has numerous shortcomings, which need to
be remedied and the policy, as such, requires modification with the
intervention of Court. It was also contended that the said policy has been
made uniformly applicable to all categories of victims and the
compensation for everyone is to be calculated as per the provisions of the
Act of 1923, including employees of the department or private persons,
working or non-working individuals, children and adults alike. There is no
intelligible criteria in providing for a common method of calculating the
5 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-6-
CWP-17880-2023
amount of compensation for adults and children under 16 years of age
alike. There is no provision for special grant of medical expenses or for
trauma, mental agony and physical pain suffered by a child. The amount
to be calculated also does not take into reckoning the loss of marriage
prospects or adequate compensation for hiring a dedicated caregiver,
keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered. The method of calculating
the compensation under the Act of 1923 has been made applicable on
children as well, treating their income to be the minimum prescribed by
the Government while ignoring the fact that future income can never be
anticipated at such tender age. Moreover, nothing has been awarded to
account for future prospects/inflation rate.
4.2 Reliance has been placed on M.C. Mehta and another vs.
Union of India and others, (1987) 1 SCC 395 and M.P. Electricity
Board vs. Shail Kumari and others, (2002) 2 SCC 162. With regard to
quantification of the compensation payable, reliance has been placed upon
a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High
Court in CWP-475-2013 decided on 09.01.2015 titled as Naval Kumar @
Rohit Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, as approved and modified by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs.
Naval Kumar @ Rohit Kumar, (2017) 3 SCC 115.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nigam argued
that to adequately deal with cases like that of the petitioner, the Nigam has
already taken a conscious policy decision, which stands reflected in the
instructions dated 15.07.2019. The petitioner has already been granted full
and final compensation under the said instructions and hence, the present
6 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-7-
CWP-17880-2023
petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. No further amount
is payable to the petitioner, after her having accepted the amount payable
under the policy. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner had
extended the balcony of his house, and thus the respondent Nigam was
not at any fault for the unfortunate incident, resulting in permanent
disability of the petitioner.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
meticulously gone through the paper-book with their able assistance.
7. The issues that arise for consideration in the present case are:
i. Whether the petitioner can maintain a claim for
compensation on account of the injury and damage
suffered, after having been awarded compensation
under the instructions dated 15.07.2019. If answered in
the affirmative, what would be a fair and just amount;
ii. Whether the instructions dated 15.07.2019 are
inadequate inasmuch as it does not include
compensation under the heads like future prospects,
inflation, medical expenses (past and future), physical
pain and suffering, mental harassment, decreased
prospects of marriage, expenses for caretaker and
special diet, etc;
iii. Whether the instructions dated 15.07.2019 are arbitrary
and liable to be read down inasmuch as it prescribes
uniform norms of providing compensation to all
categories of victims alike, including minors, and to
the extent it adopts the provisions of the Employees’
Compensation Act, 1923, to determine compensation
for children with age less than 16 years; and
iv. Whether the order dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure P-10)
awarding compensation under the supra instructions is
liable to be modified and the compensation enhanced,7 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-8-
CWP-17880-2023keeping in view the settled principles of computing
compensation in death/injury cases.
8. It would be apposite to note the salient features of the
compensation policy contained in the instructions dated 15.07.2019
(Annexure P-8), which are extracted hereunder for ready reference:
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (hereinafter
called DHBVN) is engaged in activities which are
hazardous and risky to human life. Presently, DHBVN
pays compensation to its employees under Employees
Compensation Act 1923. Similarly, private persons are
also awarded compensation as per formula applicable to
its regular employees in case the Nigam owns its
negligence.
2. It has been noticed that there are certain
discrepancies as well as inadequacy in the compensation
presently being paid for the fatal as well as non-fatal
accidents of human beings due to electrocution. Under
such circumstances, the Nigam should compensate for the
damage caused to human life due to electrocution,
irrespective of any carelessness or fault on its part or on
the part of employees of the Nigam.
3. Accordingly, the revised norms are hereby
prescribed for the payment of compensation for fatal as
well as non-fatal accident of human beings due to
electrocution or working on electrical system of the
DHBVN or while on duty for the DHBVN.
4. The compensation allowed under these
instructions is over and above the benefits otherwise
admissible to the concerned categories as per the terms of
employment/ contract/ applicable law.
5. The compensation allowed by the DHBVN as
above is purely on humanitarian ground and shall not
create any obligation whatsoever enforceable in any court
of law.
8 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-9-
CWP-17880-2023
6. Туpe of Accidents:
Depending upon the severity of the accident and its
impact on human beings, the accidents due to
electrocution are classified as under:-
I. Fatal accident:- Resulting into the death of
human beings.
II. Non-Fatal Accidents:- Resulting into disability
to human beings. Depending upon the disability,
these non-fatal accidents are further classified as
under:-
(a) Accidents resulting in permanent disability.
(b) Accidents resulting in partial disability.
(c) Accident resulting in temporary disability.
7. Category of the affected person:-
The affected victims covered under the policy are
categorized as under:-
I. Regular employees of the Nigam.
II. Contractual workers (Direct - Part Time and Full
Time).
III. Contractual workers (Part Time and Full Time
through contractors).
IV. Private Persons.
(a) Adults.
(b) Children.
V. Workmen engaged by contractor on Nigam’s
works.
The compensation payable to above mentioned
categories is detailed out as under:-
8. Nigam Regular Employees.
(I) Fatal Accident
(a) to (c) xx xx xx xxx
(II) Non Fatal Accident
The following compensation shall be payable to the
victim:-
(A) Permanent Disablement
(a) to (d) xx xx xxxxx
9 of 35
::: Downloaded on - 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-10-
CWP-17880-2023
(B) Partial Disablement
(a) to (b) xx xx xxxxx
(C) Temporarily Disablement
(a) to (b) xx xx xxxxx
9. xxxx
10. xxxx
11. Private Person for Fatal Accident & Non-Fatal
Accidents
DHBVN is engaged in the hazardous activity and
risky for the human life and thus DHBVN owns
strict liability for compensation to the private
person. Accordingly, the compensation to the
private person shall be payable in case of fatal as
well as non-fatal accident irrespective of the
reasons for such accident as the electricity system
is open to the public. The compensation amount
shall be payable as per provision of the Employees
Compensation Act, 1923. However, this
compensation shall be applicable for the accident
cases occurring with the electrical network of the
DHBVN and not in private premises.
12. Private Person having age less than of 16 years
for Fatal Accident & Non-Fatal Accidents
The compensation for fatal as well as non-fatal
accident to a private person having age less than 16
years, shall be payable as per the provisions of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Since, the
age factor for person having age less than 16 years
is not available in the Employees Compensation
Act 1923, accordingly, the age factor for the 16
years (being the highest age factor) shall be
considered for working out the amount of
compensation. However, this compensation shall
be applicable for the accident cases occurring with
the electrical network of the DHBVN and not in
private premises.
10 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-11-
CWP-17880-2023
12A. Workmen engaged by contractor on Nigam
works (Part Time & Full time).
I. In case of Fatal or Non Fatal Accident of
workmen engaged by contractor on Nigam works,
compensation amount shall be payable as per
provision of the Employees Compensation Act,
1923. However, this compensation shall be
applicable for the accident cases occurring on the
DHBVN network and not on the private premises.
II. In case contractor is not coming forward to
deposit compensation within a period of one
month from the date of occurrence of accident,
then Nigam being Principal Employer shall
deposit the amount with Labour Commissioner in
terms of Employees Compensation Act, 1923
under intimation to the legal heirs of the deceased
to collect the same. After deposit of the
compensation amount, it shall be recovered from
any amount payable to the contractor and if no
amount is outstanding against the contractor, then
the amount shall be recovered by way of filing
civil suit against the contractor.
III. In case of fatal/ non-fatal accident, the contractor
shall inform the Nigam within 48 hours, the
details of the said accident along-with the
particulars of the workmen injured/ expired i.e.
his/ her contact number, address, name and detail
of nominee etc. on the proforma to be prescribed
by the Nigam. On receipt of this information, the
concerned officer of the Nigam i.e. Engineer
Incharge/ DDO shall be responsible for taking
necessary action as per the above terms. The
Engineer Incharge shall also inform the details of
the accident and action taken by him to the
concerned Chief Engineer and
Director/Operations, DHBVN, Hisar.
11 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-12-
CWP-17880-2023
13. The authority for sanction of the compensation
under the above policy shall be as under:-
Sr. Category Type of Description Investigating Sanctioning
No. of persons Accidents Officer Authority
1 to xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
16
17. Private Fatal Compensation Respective Respective
persons Accidents SE (OP) CE (OP)
(Not more through CEI
than the age
of 16 years)
18 -do- -do- Other Respective Respective
financial SE (OP) CE (OP)
assistance through CEI
19. -do- Non-Fatal Compensation Respective Respective
Accidents XEN (OP) CE (OP)
through CEI
20 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
to
22
9. A profound reading of the aforesaid compensation policy
reveals that earlier, compensation was awarded to private persons also, as
per the formula applicable to its regular employees, in case the Nigam
owned its negligence. Noticing certain discrepancies and inadequacy in
the compensation being earlier paid for fatal as well as non fatal accidents
of human beings due to electrocution, the Nigam has taken a conscious
decision to compensate for the damage caused to human life due to
electrocution, irrespective of any carelessness or fault on its part or on the
part of the employees of the Nigam. In other words, compensation under
the instructions dated 15.07.2019 is to be paid under the principle of no
fault liability.
9.1 Clause 3 of the instructions ibid stipulates payment of
compensation for fatal as well as non fatal accidents of human beings, due
to electrocution from the electrical system of the distribution licensee.
12 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-13-
CWP-17880-20239.2 Concededly, the petitioner suffered severe injuries on coming
in close proximity/contact with the 11 kV HT line passing in front of her
house. On an independent inquiry conducted by the Chief Electricity
Inspector (CEI), in terms of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2003’), the report regarding the
cause of accident and responsibility for the same in the instant case, held
the Nigam to be also responsible for the incident. It is notable that the said
finding has been arrived at after noticing the factual position that a 11 kV
Nawadi DS line is passing near the house of the victim but allegedly the
petitioner’s father, namely Raj Kumar, has illegally extended the balcony
of his house towards the HT line. However, no material has been placed
on record to substantiate the aforesaid allegation. Nonetheless, in view of
the findings and the conclusion recorded in the inquiry report by the Chief
Electricity Inspector, responsibility has been categorically fixed on the
respondent Nigam.
9.3 Clause 4 of the supra instructions, which is extracted
hereinafter at the cost of repetition, leaves no room for any doubt that the
compensation awarded under the instructions ibid, is over and above the
benefits otherwise admissible to the concerned categories of victims as
per the contractual obligation/applicable law. A perusal of the said
unambiguous provision makes it candid that any compensation awarded
under the instructions ibid would not create any fetters upon a
common/public law remedy available under the applicable law.
“4. The compensation allowed under these
instructions is over and above the benefits otherwise13 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-14-
CWP-17880-2023admissible to the concerned categories as per the terms of
employment/ contract/ applicable law.”
10. Learned counsel for the respondent Nigam is also not in a
position to controvert the fact that the claim for award of further
compensation by the petitioner stands covered under clause 4 read with
clause 12 of the instructions dated 15.07.2019, notified by the respondent
Nigam.
11. There can be no dispute that human life and well-being has
no price in monetary terms. If a person dies or suffers injuries by
electrocution due to the misfeasance and carelessness of the distribution
licensee, a case for payment of compensation would arise. Section 68 of
the Act of 2003, and the relevant provisions of the Indian Electricity
Rules, statutorily cast a duty on the distribution licensee, respondent
Nigam in the present case, to keep the humans living in and around
habitation, safe from any harm by the supply of potentially dangerous
energy, especially through high voltage transmission lines. The Nigam
was duty bound to follow the safety measures required to be observed for
supply/transmission of electricity. Electricity is a dangerous commodity
and it is statutory duty of the distribution licensee, i.e. the Nigam in the
present case, to put in place all protective measures and to abide by the
statutory provisions in that regard. In the present case, had the Nigam
taken precautions and installed the necessary safety devices, the accident
could have been avoided. The Nigam having failed to protect the life and
property of the public at large in general and of the petitioner in particular,
the present case falls within the ambit of strict liability.
14 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-15-
CWP-17880-2023
12. The factual position is not in dispute in the present case. The
respondent Nigam is the sole distribution licensee of the area where the
accident has taken place and it was maintaining and operating the HT line
to transmit High Voltage electricity, which is passing in front of the
petitioner’s house and the accident has occurred on account of the said
line. In view of the same, it is a fit case where the principle of res ipsa
loquitur would apply with full strength.
12.1 Further, with regard to the liability to pay compensation by
the tortfeasor, in the case of a gravely injured child, the concept of
contributory negligence cannot be made applicable. There can be no
denying that a child functions according to his own reasoning and
intelligence. As noticed hereinabove, there is no material brought on
record to show that the petitioner was at any fault. Even with regard to the
allegation qua the father of the petitioner having extended the balcony, in
the absence of any material available on record and the factum that the
respondent Nigam has accepted its negligence and liability, the petitioner
cannot be held liable for contributory negligence. Even otherwise, the
manner in which the accident had occurred, it was for the Nigam to
establish contrary to the inquiry report that there was no negligence on its
part. S6ince the HT line carrying high voltage electricity was passing at a
very close distance from the petitioner’s house, no contributing
negligence can be attributed to a girl aged about 6 years. A Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. State Road Transport
Corporation and others vs. Abdul Rahaman and others, reported in AIR
1997 MP 248, held as under:
15 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-16-
CWP-17880-2023“11. From the aforesaid discussion relating to
contributory negligence on the part of a child of tender
age there is no doubt that the concept of contributory
negligence cannot be made applicable to a child. A child
functions according to his own reasoning and his
intelligence. Logicality and rationality are not expected
from a child as a child of tender age has no continuous
thinking process and is governed by his impulse, instinct
and innocence. Can one ever conceive that a child, if
would have been aware of the peril, would ever commit
an act which is dangerous or hazardous for him? The
answer has to be a categorical ‘No’, because a child’s
action is childlike and really innocent. Possibly for that
reason, it has been said :–
“The Maker of the Stars and Sea, become a
Child earth for me?”
A child remains a child in spite of all training and
directions and if anything sparkles it is the glory of his
innocence which makes him indifferent to the risks which
an adult apprehends and pays attention.
In view of our aforesaid analysis, we conclude
and hold that Riyaz, the child of four, was not liable for
contributory negligence.”
13. In the case at hand, the factum of liability is not in dispute.
The respondent Nigam has already got conducted an independent inquiry,
through its Chief Electricity Inspector, with regard to the cause of the
accident and responsibility, and has arrived at the conclusion that the
respondent Nigam is also responsible. Thereafter, accepting the said
finding of fact, the Nigam of its own volition has paid some compensation
to the petitioner as per the liberalized compensation policy reflected in the
instructions dated 15.07.2019. The respondent Nigam has not denied the
corresponding pleadings in the writ petition or raised any challenge to the
16 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-17-
CWP-17880-2023
findings recorded in the inquiry report or the subsequent action taken by
placing reliance upon the said conclusions.
14. In the light of the above, and having given our thoughtful
consideration to the admitted factual aspects of the case and the
provisions of the instructions dated 15.07.2019, we are of the considered
opinion that the action of the petitioner in availing her remedy to claim
damages from the tortfeasor, would not be barred on account of having
been awarded compensation under the instructions ibid, vide order dated
13.02.2023 (Annexure P-10).
15. Thus, the next aspect that would arise for consideration is
with regard to quantification of the compensation that the petitioner is
entitled to, in the conceded facts and circumstances of the case, whereby
the petitioner has suffered 92% permanent disability, as per disability
certificate (Annexure P-4).
16. It is settled principle of law that a person injured by the
negligent act of others is entitled to general damages for non-pecuniary
loss such as pain, suffering and loss of amenities, in addition to those for
pecuniary loss, both past and future. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
decision in Civil Appeal No. 1799-1800 of 1989 decided on 06.01.1995,
titled as R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others,
reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551, has laid down the following principles to
determine compensation for disability:
“9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of
compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the
damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary
damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are
those which the victim has actually incurred and which
17 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-18-
CWP-17880-2023
are capable of being calculated in terms of money;
whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations.
In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages
may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i)
medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the
date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary
damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for
mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already
suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to
compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may
include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the
claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages
for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury
the normal longevity of the person concerned is
shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.”
17. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha
Jain vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in
(2013) 8 SCC 389, have reiterated the following principles for granting
compensation for personal injury:
“40. It is well-settled principle that in granting
compensation for personal injury, the injured has to be
compensated (1) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of
amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life, if any; (4)
loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some
cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other
special damages. In personal injury cases the two main
elements are the personal loss and pecuniary loss.
Cockburn, C.J. in Fair case [Fair v. London and North
Western Railway Co., (1869) 21 LT (NS) 326 (QB)] ,
distinguished the above two aspects thus:
18 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-19-
CWP-17880-2023
“In assessing the compensation the jury
should take into account two things, first, the
pecuniary loss the plaintiff sustains by the
accident; secondly, the injury he sustains in his
person, or his physical capacity of enjoying life.
When they come to the consideration of the
pecuniary loss they have to take into account not
only his present loss, but his incapacity to earn a
future improved income.”
41. McGregor on Damages (14th Edn.) at Para 1157,
referring to the heads of damages in personal injury
actions, states as under:
“The person physically injured may
recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-
pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses
themselves comprise two separate items viz. the
loss of earnings and other gains which the
plaintiff would have made had he not been injured
and the medical and other expenses to which he is
put as a result of the injury, and the courts have
subdivided the non-pecuniary losses into three
categories viz. pain and suffering, loss of
amenities of life and loss of expectation of life.
Besides, the Court is well advised to
remember that the measures of damages in all
these cases ‘should be such as to enable even a
tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his
misadventure.’ The observation of Lord Devlin
that the proper approach to the problem or to
adopt a test as to what contemporary society
would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow
the wrongdoer to ‘hold up his head among his
neighbours and say with their approval that he
has done the fair thing’, is quite apposite to be
kept in mind by the Court in assessing
compensation in personal injury cases.”
(emphasis supplied)
42. In R. Venkatesh v. P. Saravanan [(2001) 1 Kant
LJ 411] the High Court of Karnataka while dealing with a
personal injury case wherein the claimant sustained
certain crushing injuries due to which his left lower limb
was amputated, held that in terms of functional disability,
the disability sustained by the claimant is total and 100%
though only the claimant’s left lower limb was amputated.
In para 9 of the judgment, the Court held as under: (Kant
LJ p. 415)
19 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-20-
CWP-17880-2023
“9. As a result of the amputation, the
claimant had been rendered a cripple. He requires
the help of crutches even for walking. He has
become unfit for any kind of manual work. As he
was earlier a loader doing manual work, the
amputation of his left leg below the knee, has
rendered him unfit for any kind of manual work.
He has no education. In such cases, it is well
settled that the economic and functional disability
will have to be treated as total, even though the
physical disability is not 100%.”
3. Lord Reid in Baker v. Willoughby [Baker v.
Willoughby, 1970 AC 467: (1970) 2 WLR 50 :
(1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] has said: (AC
p.492A)“… A man is not compensated for the
physical injury: he is compensated for the loss
which he suffers as a result of that injury. His loss
is not in having a stiff leg: it is in his inability to
lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those
amenities which depend on freedom of movement
and his inability to earn as much as he used to
earn or could have earned….”
44. The aforesaid principles laid down by this Court,
appeal cases, House of Lords and leading authors and
experts referred to supra, whose opinions have been
extracted above, on all fours, are applicable to the fact
situation for awarding just and reasonable compensation
in favour of the appellant as she had sustained grievous
injuries on her face and other parts of the body which is
assessed at 30% permanent disablement by competent
doctors.”
18. In the present case, the petitioner has been crippled for her
entire life. Her right arm has been amputated from the shoulder besides
having suffered damage to the fingers of her left hand. For the injuries
suffered by her, she would not be able to lead and enjoy those comforts
and amenities of life, which depend on freedom of movement.
20 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-21-
CWP-17880-2023
19. This Court has recently considered computation of
compensation for non-pecuniary loss in LPA No.2351 of 2017 decided on
13.02.2026 titled as Sandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others,
reported in Law Finder Doc Id #2853602. In the said case, compensation
was awarded for 100% functional/permanent disability caused due to
negligence in maintaining a university building, which had collapsed onto
the victim, an undergraduate student of that university. In the said case,
following the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal No.8131-32 of 2014 decided on 25.09.2014 titled as Ashvinbhai
Jayantilal Modi vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another, as
well as in Civil Appeal No.3125 of 2023 decided on 24.04.2023, titled as
Kandasami and others vs. Lindabriyal and another, reported in 2023
ACJ 1653, and also in Civil Appeal No.9897-98 of 2025 decided on
29.07.2025 titled as S. Mohammed Hakkim vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd. and others, reported in (2025) 10 SCC 263, the notional
monthly income of the claimant was held to be Rs.22,500/- with addition
of 40% towards future prospects. No deduction towards personal expenses
was made from the amount of compensation, in view of the law laid down
in Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (dead) through
legal representatives and others, reported in (2023) 13 SCC 334, as it
was a petition by a survivor in the accident with injuries resulting in
permanent disability and not a case of death, wherein the claim is made by
the dependents. Thus, keeping in view the ratio in Sandeep Kaur‘s case
(supra) and that in the said case, the claimant was 23 years of age and in
the present case, the petitioner was six years of age at the time of the
21 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-22-
CWP-17880-2023
accident, the notional income of the petitioner can safely be taken to be
Rs.20,000/- per month. The relevant portion of the judgment in Sandeep
Kaur (supra), reads thus:
“24. In the light of the aforesaid settled principles of
law, for determining notional income of a student who has
suffered 100% functional disability, we are of the
considered view that the income of the appellant is
required to be reckoned as Rs.22,500/- per month.
Besides the above, future prospects @ 40% are to be
awarded keeping in view the dicta in Sidram vs.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
Ltd. and another, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 and
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
24.1 The general principles relating to compensation in
injury cases and assessment of future loss of earnings due
to permanent disability, expounded by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and
another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, was applied and
followed in Sidram‘s case (supra). It was further held that
it is not necessary to adduce any documentary evidence to
prove notional income of victim and Court can award
same even in absence of any documentary evidence. The
principle of awarding notional income was approved,
where the same is just in facts and circumstances of the
case. The relevant portion of the judgment in Sidram
(supra) reads thus:
“59. Thus, we are of the view,
more particularly keeping in mind the dictum
of this Court in Kirti [Kirti v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 166] that it
is not necessary to adduce any documentary
evidence to prove the notional income of the
victim and the Court can award the same even
in the absence of any documentary evidence.
In Kirti [Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2021) 2 SCC 166] it was stated that the Court
should ensure while choosing the method and
fixing the notional income that the same is just
22 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-23-
CWP-17880-2023
in the facts and circumstances of the particular
case, neither assessing the compensation too
conservatively, nor too liberally.”
25. Concededly, the date of birth of the appellant is
10.01.1990 and as such, she was about 23 years of age as
on 11.10.2013, i.e. when the unfortunate incident
occurred. In view of the ratio in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121, multiplier of 18 is to be applied. The principles for
determination of just compensation contemplated under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were reiterated in Civil
Appeal No.735 of 2020 decided on 05.02.2020 titled as
Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others¸ reported in (2020) 4
SCC 413. In the said case, it was further held that the
multiplier system is to be followed not only for
determining the compensation on account of loss of
income but also for determining the attendant charges,
etc. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:
“5. The principles with regard to
determination of just compensation
contemplated under the Act are well settled.
The injuries cause deprivation to the body
which entitles the claimant to claim damages.
The damages may vary according to the
gravity of the injuries sustained by the
claimant in an accident. On account of the
injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential
losses such as:
(i) loss of earning;
(ii) expenses on treatment which may
include medical expenses, transportation,
special diet, attendant charges, etc.,
(iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life
by loss of a particular part of the body,
and
(iv) loss of future earning capacity.
23 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-24-
CWP-17880-2023
Damages can be pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in rupees
and paise.
6. It is impossible to equate human
suffering and personal deprivation with money.
However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the
courts to do. The court has to make a judicious
attempt to award damages, so as to compensate
the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim.
On the one hand, the compensation should not
be assessed very conservatively, but on the
other hand, the compensation should also not
be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to
make it a bounty to the claimant. The court
while assessing the compensation should have
regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss
caused by such deprivation. Such
compensation is what is termed as just
compensation. The compensation or damages
assessed for personal injuries should be
substantial to compensate the injured for the
deprivation suffered by the injured throughout
his/her life. They should not be just token
damages.
… …
Attendant charges
22. The attendant charges have been
awarded by the High Court @ Rs 2500 per
month for 44 years, which works out to Rs
13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is not a
proper system. Multiplier system is used to
balance out various factors. When
compensation is awarded in lump sum, various
factors are taken into consideration. When
compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court
has always followed the multiplier system. The
24 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-25-
CWP-17880-2023
multiplier system should be followed not only
for determining the compensation on account
of loss of income but also for determining the
attendant charges, etc. This system was
recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor
Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami [AIR 1962
SC 1]. The multiplier system factors in the
inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the
lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant,
and also other issues such as the uncertainties
of life. Out of all the various alternative
methods, the multiplier method has been
recognised as the most realistic and reasonable
method. It ensures better justice between the
parties and thus results in award of “just
compensation” within the meaning of the Act.”
26. In State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs.
Naval Kumar alias Rohit Kumar, Civil Appeal No.1339
of 2017 decided on 02.02.2017, reported in (2017) 3 SCC
115, the Apex Court was considering just and reasonable
compensation to the victim, a boy of 08 years who came
in contact with high tension live wire and suffered
injuries. Both arms of the said victim had to be amputated
making him 100% disabled permanently. In the said case,
compensation was determined at Rs. 90 Lakh along with
6% interest to take care of the victim’s upbringing and
other needs for the rest of his life.
27. The decision in Civil Appeal No.14290 of 2024
decided on 11.12.2024, titled as Baby Sakshi Greola vs.
Manjoor Ahmad Simon and another, reported in 2024(3)
PLR 707, followed the ratio in Kajal‘s case (supra). It
was further held therein that the claimant who was aged
about 07 years when she suffered grievous injuries on
account of the road accident, suffered disability to the
extent of 75%, however, on a complete overview of the
25 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-26-
CWP-17880-2023
situation, like in the present case, for all practical
purposes, the disability was treated to be 100%. The
compensation of Rs.1 lakh awarded under the head of
‘pain and suffering’ was enhanced to Rs.15 lakh taking
into consideration that the claimant will remain dependent
on another person for the rest of her life and will also miss
out on taking part in activities which she would have
normally done, if she had not met with this unfortunate
accident.
28. Keeping in view the principle of law laid down in
Kajal‘s case and Baby Sakshi Greola‘s case (supra), it
would be just and fair to award attendant charges, for two
attendants and apply the multiplier system thereto, as
well. The appellant would also be entitled for future
medical expenses of Rs.5 lakh, being taken on the
conservative side, keeping in view the nature of injuries
and the permanent disability suffered. It is also to be
borne in mind that with advancement in medical science,
newer treatments and therapies shall become available in
future, which of course would come at a premium and any
patient suffering, like the appellant, would aspire to take
the same. At least, the financial security to be able to
afford such treatment in future, is likely to serve as some
solace to the appellant.
29. Considering the amount ought to be awarded
under the head ‘pain and suffering’, it would be gainful to
refer to the law laid down in Civil Appeal No.12993 of
2024 decided on 22.11.2024, titled as K.S. Muralidhar vs.
R. Subbulakshmi and another, reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 3385. Their Lordships of the Apex Court on
acknowledging that ‘pain and suffering’ as a concept
escapes definition, referred to certain authorities,
scholarly as also judicial, wherein attempts have been
made to set down the contours thereof. Some decisions in
respect of pain and suffering in cases where disability
suffered is at 100% were also noticed. After profound
26 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-27-
CWP-17880-2023
deliberation, an amount of Rs.15 lakh was awarded under
the head ‘pain and suffering’, with the following
observation:
“15. Keeping in view the above-referred
judgments, the injuries suffered, the ‘pain and
suffering’ caused, and the life-long nature of
the disability afflicted upon the claimant-
appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as
reproduced above, we find the request of the
claimant-appellant to be justified and as such,
award Rs. 15,00,000/- under the head ‘pain
and suffering’, fully conscious of the fact that
the prayer of the claimant-appellant for
enhancement of compensation was by a sum of
Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to
be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so
awarded.”
30. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant
is a young woman who would naturally have dreams of
settling in matrimony and having children of her own,
which dreams stand adversely impacted by the
unfortunate incident. It is well recognized that marriage/
companionship is an integral part of the natural life of a
human being. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries
suffered by the appellant and her 100% functional
disability, it is near impossible for her to rear children and
enjoy the simple pleasures of marital life. Keeping in
view the impact of the non-pecuniary loss suffered by the
appellant, we are of the considered view that the appellant
is to be also granted compensation of Rs.5 lakh under the
head of ‘loss of marriage prospects’, following the ratio in
Baby Sakshi Greola‘s case (supra).
31. The appellant, having been confined and restricted
in her movement on account of the permanent disability
suffered by her, would be required to spend extra money
27 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-28-
CWP-17880-2023
for transportation. Not only that, the appellant would also
require special diet, keeping in view the nature of her
injuries, which has limited her movement to negligible.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1 lakh deserves to be
awarded under the said head as well.”
20. In the present case, the disability certificate (Annexure P-4)
of the petitioner categorically records the disability as under:
"A. She is a case of Locomotor Disabilty
B. The diagnosis in her case is on account of right
shoulder disarticulation with contracture of left ring and
littler finger.
C. She has 92% (in figure) Ninety Two percent (in
words) Permanent Disability in relation to her right hand
as per the guidelines (Guidelines for the purpose of
assessing the extent of specified disability in a person
included under RPwD Act, 2016 notified by Government
of India vide S.O. 76(E) dated 04.01.2018).”
21. A perusal of the aforesaid disability recorded in the
certificate (Annexure P-4) shows that the same has been assessed as 92%
in relation to the right arm. The petitioner is a girl child of tender age,
who has a whole life ahead of her and would have to learn to adjust to and
overcome her disability. The photographs of the petitioner depicting the
injuries suffered by her have been placed on record as Annexure P-3. A
glance at the said photographs would show that apart from the damage to
the two fingers of the left hand, recorded in the disability certificate, there
is contracture of the index finger as well. No percentage of disability has
been specified on account of the aforesaid permanent disability of the left
hand. However, keeping in view that the disability certificate dated
20.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) is an undisputed document, which has not
28 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-29-
CWP-17880-2023
been assailed by either side, it can safely be assessed that the petitioner
suffers 70% functional disability with regard to the whole body.
22. It is also to be noticed that the principle for computing
damages/compensation draws strength from the principle of restitutio in
integrum. As a remedial measure, the petitioner is entitled to be put in the
same position in which she would have been if she had not suffered the
wrong. In the present case, the petitioner, a girl child now aged about ten
years, has a right to lead a healthy, happy and dignified life under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Owing to the loss suffered on
coming in contact with the high tension wire, when she was playing in her
own home, she has to now live with the trauma and shall remain
physically challenged throughout the life. The petitioner had just started
her life and was at the threshold of being introduced into the formal
education system. During her growing-up years, she would eventually
compare herself with other children of her age and not being physically in
a position to carry on with all the activities that an able-bodied child does,
she has to go through inconvenience, discomfort, frustration and mental
stress for the rest of her life. She would require a full-time attendant to
guide and help her through with the simple tasks, which require two
arms/hands to complete. For the said reason, the petitioner is also entitled
to employ an attendant to assist her to execute those simple tasks and
empower her to overcome her physical incapacity and learn to be self-
sufficient and self-reliant. Even if the family members are providing for
the said tasks, the petitioner is entitled to award of damages for a whole-
time attendant, for every day. Keeping in view the principle laid down in
29 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-30-
CWP-17880-2023
Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others¸ reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and
Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manjoor Ahmad Simon and another, reported in
2024(3) PLR 707, it would be just and fair to award attendant charges and
apply the multiplier system thereto, as well.
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.11466 of 2014 decided on 17.12.2014 titled as Raman vs. Uttar
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, reported in (2014) 15 SCC
1, had approved a deviation from following the multiplier method in order
to award higher compensation, being just and reasonable in the said case,
having regard to the statutory negligence on the part of the respondents in
not providing the safety measures regarding live electricity wires.
24. Insofar as the disability in the present case is concerned, the
petitioner’s right arm having been amputated from the shoulder, she
would require an advance prosthetic arm, which would enable her to
attend to her daily activity and carry on with life. It is also to be taken
note that the petitioner would require servicing and replacement of the
accessories of the prosthetic limb periodically. In the absence of evidence
regarding the quantum of expenditure in that regard, this Court is inclined
to conservatively accept the amount awarded by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Civil Appeal No.12098-12099 of 2024 decided on
04.09.2025 titled as Anoop Maheshwari vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 2025 SC 4099. In the said
case, in the absence of any evidence regarding the frequency of change or
the servicing of the prosthetic limb or the quantum of expenditure, their
Lordships of the Apex Court were of the opinion that an amount of Rs.10
30 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-31-
CWP-17880-2023
lakh would suffice to account for the future expenses of continued use of
the prosthetic limb and medical expenses arising in that regard. The said
amount is also required to be awarded to the petitioner in the present case.
25. On a conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, in our
considered opinion, the fair, just and proper compensation to be awarded
to the petitioner is tabulated hereunder:
Sr. Heads Compensation Judgments relied upon
No.
1. Notional Income Monthly-Rs.20,000/- S. Mohammed Hakkim vs.
National Insurance
Annually- Company Ltd. and others
Rs.20,000 x 12 = (2025) 10 SCC 263
Rs.2,40,000/-
Kandasami and others vs.
Lindabriyal and another
2023 ACJ 1653
Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs.
Laxman Maruti Jadhav
(2023) 13 SCC 334
2. Future Prospects Rs.2,40,000 + 96,000 Sidram vs. United India
@ 40% = Rs.3,36,000/- Insurance Company Ltd.
(2023) 3 SCC 439
3. Income after Rs.3,36,000 x 18 = Sarla Verma vs. DTC
applying multiplier Rs.60,48,000/- (2009) 6 SCC 121
of 18 (age 6 years)
4. Functional loss with Rs.60,48,000/- x 70%
regard to whole = Rs. 42,33,600/-
body (70%)
5. Attendant charges Rs.10,000 x 12 x 18 Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand
for 01 whole time = Rs.21,60,000/- (2020) 4 SCC 413
attendant
Baby Sakshi Greola vs.
Manjoor Ahmad Simon and
another
2024 3 PLR 707
6. Future medical Rs.5,00,000/- Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand
expenses (supra)
Baby Sakshi Greola vs.
Manjoor Ahmad Simon and
another (supra)
7. Pain and suffering Rs.15,00,000/- K.S. Muralidhar vs. R.
Subbulakshmi and another
2024 SCC Online SC
3385
8. Loss of amenities of Rs.5,00,000/- Baby Sakshi Greola vs.
31 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-32-
CWP-17880-2023
Sr. Heads Compensation Judgments relied upon
No.
life and marriage Manjoor Ahmad Simon and
another (supra)
9. Transportation and Rs.1,00,000/-
special diet
10. Advance prosthetic Rs.10,00,000/- Anoop Maheshwari vs.
limb, servicing & Oriental Insurance
replacement of its Company Ltd. and others
parts AIR 2025 SC 4099
11. Total Compensation Rs.99,93,600/-
26. With regard to the challenge raised to the instructions dated
15.07.2019, it would suffice to note that compensation granted under the
instructions ibid, is in the nature of a concession purely on humanitarian
ground, based on the principle of no-fault liability, which has been
categorically specified to be over and above the benefits otherwise
admissible to the petitioner. To our mind, prima facie, a concession
cannot be challenged on the ground of inadequacy and the quantum of
grant of such concession or the nature or manner in which the same is to
be applied, would remain in the domain of the authority granting such
concession, moreso when the said concession is not shown to have
infringed or violated any vested right of the petitioner. A perusal of the
instructions ibid would show that they do not curtail any right of the
petitioner either under common law or public law or private law. On the
contrary, clause 4 of the instructions specifically provides that the
compensation allowed under the said instructions is over and above the
benefits otherwise admissible to the concerned categories, as per
applicable law. This would include the settled principles of law laid down
in such kind of cases. The judgments have already been referred
hereinbefore, which entitle the petitioner to adequate compensation based
32 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-33-
CWP-17880-2023
upon the percentage of injury suffered and entitlement to award of
compensation under various heads as detailed in para 25 hereinbefore,
which will be over and above the compensation awarded under the
instructions dated 15.07.2019, on humanitarian ground. In the light of the
aforesaid, issues (ii) and (iii) are answered accordingly.
27. With regard to the challenge to the order dated 13.02.2023
(Annexure P-10), the petitioner has failed to demonstrate from the record
or bring any provision to our notice, to succeed in the said challenge.
Concededly, the compensation awarded under the Compensation Policy is
strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the instructions
dated 15.07.2019, which have already been held to be in the nature of a
concession. Keeping in view that the petitioner has already been held
entitled to compensation over and above than what has already been
awarded under the instructions dated 15.07.2019, testing the order dated
13.02.2023 (Annexure P-10) on the anvil, would in the present
circumstances be an academic exercise and this Court is not inclined to
devote any further consideration to the said proposition.
28. Resultantly, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The
amount of compensation awarded hereinbefore shall attract interest @
7.5% per annum, from the date of institution of the writ petition till
realization of the entire amount. As a matter of abundant caution, it is
made clear that no deduction is to be made from the total compensation
awarded, for any amounts paid till date, particularly with reference to the
compensation already granted under the instructions dated 15.07.2019.
33 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-34-
CWP-17880-2023
29. The total compensation awarded shall be paid to the writ
petitioner within a period of three months from today. Ninety percent of
the said amount will be deposited in a Fixed Deposit, earning highest rate
of interest, in the name of the petitioner, under joint guardianship of her
parents, in any Nationalized Bank at Ateli Mandi, District Mahendragarh
(Haryana). The said Fixed Deposit will be periodically renewed, till
petitioner attains the age of majority. The interest so accrued will be
transferred in a separate Savings Account, to be opened in the same
Branch in the name of the petitioner, to be operated jointly by her parents.
The Manager of the Nationalized Bank, where the compensation amount
shall be deposited, would release a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month out of
the said interest deposited in the saving account to the petitioner, through
her guardian, to meet her daily expenses and the balance amount at the
end of each quarter be again kept in a separate Fixed Deposit, for being
utilized as and when required. The monthly amount given to the petitioner
would take care of her special needs, like nutritious food, cost of
attendant, educational expenses, etc.
29.1 The petitioner would be at liberty to apply to the Court for
release of further sums, as and when they are necessitated for future
medical treatment or advance prosthetic arm or any unforeseen
contingency.
30. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal and others, reported in AIR 2025 SC
1713, the entire amount including interest awarded hereinabove will be
transferred by respondent No.3- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.
34 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::
-35-
CWP-17880-2023
in the bank account(s) of the petitioner within the stipulated time. The
particulars of the bank account(s) along with the requisite document(s) in
support thereof shall be furnished by the petitioner to the respondent
Nigam within a period of four weeks from the date of this order and
needful shall be done by the Nigam.
31. Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
32. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) (VIKAS SURI)
JUDGE JUDGE
16.03.2026
sumit.k
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
35 of 35
::: Downloaded on - 17-03-2026 01:18:57 :::