Man Electrocuted From High-Tension Line While Removing Bird Loses Both Hands; J&K&L High Court Orders ₹54.49 Lakh Compensation

The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking compensation for injuries suffered due to electrocution allegedly caused by the negligence of officials of the Power Development Department. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court seeking compensation for permanent disability sustained in an electric accident.

The Bench of Justice M A Chowdhary observed,

“Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur negligence is proved, particularly, on the basis of the FIR registered at the local police station and the charge sheet arising out of it laid in the court for the negligence and causing injuries to the petitioner.”

Background:

The petitioner, a resident of Samba district who operated a welding unit, suffered severe burn injuries in 2012 after being electrocuted while attempting to remove a dead bird from a high-tension electric line. According to the case set up in the petition, a lineman of the Power Development Department approached him for assistance in removing the bird which had caused a fault in the electric line.

The petitioner initially declined but agreed after being assured that the electricity supply had been disconnected. While climbing a ladder and touching the metal angle attached to the pole, he received an electric shock as the line was still live. He was thrown off the ladder and sustained severe burn injuries to both

An FIR was registered at Police Station Samba under Sections 287 and 337 RPC, and after investigation a charge sheet was filed against the concerned lineman for offences under Sections 287 and 338 RPC. The petitioner was treated at District Hospital Samba, Government Medical College Jammu and later at a hospital in Amritsar. During treatment, both of his forearms had to be amputated, and a medical board certified him as having suffered 100% permanent disability.

The petitioner claimed that prior to the accident he earned his livelihood as a skilled welder and sought compensation of over ₹71 lakh for loss of income, medical expenses and permanent disability. The respondents opposed the petition contending that the petitioner had climbed the high-tension pole voluntarily without authorisation and that the injuries were the result of his own acts. It was also argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to disputed questions of fact and that the petitioner had an alternate remedy by way of a civil suit.

Court's Observation:

The Court examined the pleadings and material on record and noted that it was not disputed that the petitioner had climbed the high-tension pole in the presence of the departmental lineman and suffered electric burn injuries which ultimately resulted in amputation of both hands.

The Court rejected the objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and held that compensation claims arising out of electrocution can be examined in writ jurisdiction where negligence of the authorities is established. In this regard, reliance was placed on earlier decisions recognising the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters.

While dealing with the question of negligence, the Court noted that a criminal case had been registered regarding the incident and that a charge sheet had been filed against the concerned lineman for negligence causing injuries to the petitioner. These facts had not been denied by the respondents.

The Court further observed that even if the petitioner had climbed the pole voluntarily, the presence of the departmental lineman at the spot and his failure to restrain the petitioner from doing so assumed significance. In such circumstances, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was attracted, as the instrumentality causing the damage was under the control of the electricity department, the court maintained.

On this basis, the Court held that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability due to negligence of the lineman, who was an official functionary of the Power Development Department, and that the respondents were vicariously liable to compensate him in tort.

With regard to determination of compensation, the Court noted that the petitioner had been certified to have suffered 100% physical disability and that due to amputation of both hands he had effectively lost the capacity to continue his work as a welder. The Court therefore treated the disability as 100% functional disability resulting in complete loss of earning capacity.

Since the petitioner had not produced documentary proof of his income, the Court assessed his earnings on the basis of minimum wages for a skilled worker notified by the government in 2012. The Court also considered the medical bills produced by the petitioner and the estimated cost of prosthetic limbs. It noted that artificial limbs would require replacement periodically and accordingly calculated the long-term cost of prosthetic aids required by the petitioner.

After considering the loss of future income, medical expenses, cost of artificial limbs, attendant charges, transportation and special diet expenses, and damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life, the Court determined the total compensation payable to the petitioner.

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation of ₹54,49,500 for the disability caused due to the electric accident attributable to the negligence of the lineman. The amount was directed to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition until realization.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Sheikh Altaf Hussain

Respondents: Raman Sharma, Jagmeet Kour

Case Title: Sham Lal v. State of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment