Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.  1339 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.9471/2015)

State of Himachal Pradesh  & Ors.          ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Naval Kumar alias  Rohit Kumar      …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and  order  dated  09.01.2015  passed  by  the  High

Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ

Petition No.  475 of  2013 whereby the High Court

allowed  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  respondent

herein  and  awarded  the  compensation  of

Rs.1,25,00,000/-  under  different  heads  for  the

1

Page 2

injuries  sustained  by  the  respondent  due  to

negligence of the State.

3) We  herein  set  out  the  facts,  in  brief,  to

appreciate the issue involved in this appeal.

4) On  18.03.2012  at  about  3.30  p.m.,  the

respondent-Naval  Kumar  alias  Rohit  Kumar,  who

was  8  years  old  at  the  time  of  incident,

accompanied  his  mother  to  the  fields  to  collect

“Saag” where he got electrocuted with a high tension

live  wire  (11  KV)  commonly  known  as

Lahru-Chowari Line.  He received grievous burn and

other  injuries  and  became  unconscious.   On  the

same day, FIR was registered at the instance of the

mother of the respondent.   

5) The respondent was initially taken to Referal

Hospital Chowari for treatment.  Thereafter he was

referred to  Dr.  Rajendra Prasad Medical  Hospital,

Tanda, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.  He was

operated  on  25.03.2012  and  his  both  arms  were

amputated.   He  was  admitted  in  Dr.  Rajendra

2

Page 3

Prasad Medical Hospital, Tanda w.e.f. 18.03.2012 to

03.05.2012.   The  respondent  suffered  100%

disability.  During the course of hospitalization, the

family  of  the  respondent  had  to  incur  expenses

exceeding  Rs.2,00,000/-  including  medicines,  taxi

charges, attendant charges, special diet charges etc.

The respondent has now become totally dependent

upon family members even for day-to-day activities

for his entire life.  The respondent was throughout

brilliant  student  in  his  studies  and  had  to

discontinue  his  studies  after  this  unfortunate

incident.   

6) The  respondent,  through  his  mother  and

natural guardian, namely, Smt. Lata Devi, filed writ

petition  being  W.P.  No.  475  of  2013  in  the  High

Court  against  the  appellants  herein  claiming  a

compensation  of  Rs.50,00,000/-  under  various

heads  and  also  stated  that  they  have  incurred

Rs.2,00,000/-  for  medical  expenses.   The

respondent   also  prayed  for  a  direction  to  the

3

Page 4

authorities to install and maintain all the electricity

wires,  conductors,  apparatus  etc.  strictly  in

accordance  with  the  Electricity  Act,  Rules,

Regulations etc. so that no such untoward incident

would take place in the future.

7) The High Court, by impugned judgment dated

09.01.2015,  allowed  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the

respondent herein and awarded a compensation of

Rs.1,25,00,000/-  under  different  heads  to  the

respondent.

8) Against the said judgment, the appellants have

filed this appeal by way of special leave before this

Court.

9) Heard Mr. J.S. Attri, learned senior counsel for

the  appellants  and  Mr.  Nishant  Ramakanrao

Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the respondent.

10) Learned counsel for the appellant-State of H.P.

while  assailing  the  legality  and correctness of  the

impugned order urged that the High Court erred in

awarding  Rs.1,25,00,000/-   to  the

4

Page 5

respondent-claimant by way of compensation for the

disabilities  caused  on  account  of  electrocution

suffered by the respondent. It was his submission

that the award of compensation by the High Court

is on much higher side with no material evidence on

record  in  support  thereof  and  further  it  is

essentially  based  on  assumptions  and

presumptions,  which  is  not  legally  sustainable  in

law.

11) Learned  counsel  also  contended  that  though

the respondent unfortunately lost his both the arms

thereby suffered 100% permanent disability for his

whole life at such young age, yet having regard to

several  relevant  factors  governing  the  issue,  the

compensation awarded by the High Court appears

to be on higher side and, hence, it deserves to be

reduced so as to make it a reasonable one.

12) In  reply,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent

supported the impugned order and contended that

it  does not  call  for  any interference.  According to

5

Page 6

learned counsel, it is based on proper reasoning and

being just and reasonable, therefore, does not call

for any interference.

13) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find  some force  in  the  submissions  urged  by  the

learned counsel for the appellant- State and, hence,

we are inclined to interfere in the impugned order

and,  in  consequence,  reduce  the  compensation

awarded by the High Court to the extent indicated

infra.

14) The  short  question  that  arises  for

consideration  in  this  appeal  is  whether  the  High

Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

was  justified  in  awarding  Rs.1,25,00,000/-  to  the

respondent by way of compensation for the injuries

sustained by the respondent in an accident which

occurred on 18.03.2012?  

15) The High Court held and, in our view, rightly

that  the  incident  in  question  occurred  due  to

6

Page 7

negligence of the State and its authorities and hence

the State was vicariously liable to compensate the

respondent  for  the   losses  sustained  by  the

respondent.   It  may  be  mentioned  that  the  State

rightly did not challenge this finding and hence we

need not go into its correctness.  The High Court

further  held and,  in  our view,  rightly  that  having

regard to the family background of the respondent

and further respondent’s excellent performance as a

brilliant  student  in  studies,  he  would  have  easily

earned Rs.30,000/- per month in his life. We find

no good ground to interfere in this finding of fact,

which, in our opinion, is based on proper material

on record.

16) The  High  Court,  however,  further  awarded

Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss of companionship, life

amenities/pleasures,  and  happiness,

Rs.10,00,000/-  for  pain  and  suffering,  mental

distress, trauma and discomfort and inconvenience,

Rs.10,00,000/-  towards  attendant/nursing

7

Page 8

expenses,  and  lastly,  Rs.5,00,000/-  for  securing

artificial/robotic limbs and future medical expenses.

In our considered view, the award of compensation

under these 4 heads appears to be on very higher

side and is not supported by any evidence.  It is, in

our view, based on assumptions and presumptions

to which we do not concur. In our view, entitlement

under these heads is one thing and the quantum of

grant of compensation under these heads is another

thing. In this case, as rightly urged by the learned

counsel  for  the  appellant-State  that  lump  sum

award  of  compensation  under  these  heads  is  on

higher side and is not supported by any evidence.  It

is, therefore, not legally sustainable.  

17) In  our  considered  view,  taking  into

consideration  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the

case such as respondent's  family background, his

age  (8  years),  nature  of  permanent  disability

suffered  by  the  respondent,  his  performance  in

studies,  the  determination  of  monthly/yearly

8

Page 9

income made by the High Court, expenses incurred

and all the relevant factors, which are usually taken

into  account  in  awarding  compensation  to  the

victim,  the  respondent  is  held  entitled  for  a  total

lump  sum  compensation  of  Rs.90,00,000/-  (Rs.

Ninety  lacs)  together  with  interest  payable  at  the

rate of 6% p.a. in place of Rs.1,25,00,000/- awarded

by the High Court.  

18) The  award  of  Rs.90,00,000/-  together  with

interest payable at the rate of 6% p.a., in our view,

would fetch sufficient regular monthly income to the

respondent by way of interest alone, if the awarded

sum is deposited in the Bank and would thus take

care of respondent’s upbringing and other needs for

the  rest  of  his  life.  The  award  of  compensation

determined  by  us  is  just  and  reasonable

compensation payable to the respondent.  

19) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  appeal

succeeds  and  is  allowed  in  part.  The  impugned

order is modified to the extent indicated above by

9

Page 10

reducing  the  compensation  awarded  by  the  High

Court.

20)  In other words, the compensation awarded by

the  High  Court  is,  accordingly,  reduced  from

Rs.1,25,000,00/-  to Rs.90,00,000/-  with interest

payable at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing

of the writ petition.

21) Let  the  appellant-State  deposit  the  entire

amount, as has been awarded by this Court, within

3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this

judgment  in  the  High  Court  or  pay  to  the

respondent  through  his  parents  after  proper

verification.   

                          ………...................................J. [J. CHELAMESWAR]

    …...……..................................J. [ABHAY  MANOHAR  SAPRE]

New Delhi; February 02, 2017  

10