-
by sayum
19 March 2026 9:39 AM
"She Has To Now Live With The Trauma And Shall Remain Physically Challenged Throughout The Life", In a significant ruling blending constitutional compassion with rigorous legal principle, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 16, 2026 awarded comprehensive compensation of Rs. 99,93,600/- to Anshu, a girl child who suffered 92% permanent disability — including amputation of her right arm from the shoulder — when she came in contact with an 11 kV high tension electric line that ran perilously close to the balcony of her house, when she was barely six years of age.
A Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri held that Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (DHBVNL) was strictly liable for the grievous injuries, that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied in full force, that no contributory negligence could be attributed to a child of tender years, and that the acceptance of a paltry sum under the Nigam's compensation policy did not extinguish the petitioner's right to claim full and just compensation under public law.
Background of the Case
On January 25, 2022, at around 3:00 p.m., Anshu, then a six-year-old girl, was playing on the terrace of her house at Ateli Mandi, District Mahendragarh, Haryana. She heard a sound that drew her towards the balcony. The 11 kV high tension line operated and maintained by DHBVNL ran in front of her house — the Court found it was "almost touching the grill of the house." The child came into dangerous proximity with this live high voltage wire and suffered severe burn injuries. She was rushed to Soni Devi Hospital, Neemrana and subsequently referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh, where her right arm had to be disarticulated and amputated from the shoulder. Her left hand's ring and little fingers suffered permanent contracture. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Authority, Mahendragarh, certified 92% permanent locomotor disability.
The father of the petitioner had, on multiple prior occasions, requested the Nigam to shift the HT line away from his house and to replace the damaged wire coverings that had deteriorated due to weathering. His requests went unheeded. An FIR was also registered under Section 338 IPC. The petitioner initially approached this Court in an earlier writ petition (CWP-22063-2022), whereupon the matter was directed to be decided under the Nigam's compensation policy dated 15.07.2019. The petitioner received Rs. 18,92,311/- under the policy — which she accepted under protest and deposited entirely in fixed deposit accounts. Still aggrieved by the grossly inadequate compensation, she filed the present writ petition seeking Rs. 2 crores and also challenging the policy itself.
Legal Issues and Court's Observations
On Maintainability — Whether Accepting Policy Compensation Bars Further Claim
The Nigam argued that having accepted full and final compensation under its policy, the petitioner could not maintain a fresh claim for higher compensation. The Court rejected this argument by pointing to the very text of the policy itself. Clause 4 of the instructions dated 15.07.2019 unambiguously provides: "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."
The Court held that this provision expressly preserves the petitioner's remedy under public and common law, and that the claim for additional compensation was therefore fully maintainable. Learned counsel for the Nigam was unable to controvert this position.
On Strict Liability and Res Ipsa Loquitur
The Court held that electricity is an inherently dangerous commodity and Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Indian Electricity Rules casts a statutory duty on the distribution licensee to keep humans safe from the hazards of high voltage transmission lines. The Nigam having failed in that duty, "the present case falls within the ambit of strict liability." The Court further held that since a live 11 kV line was passing almost touching the balcony grill of a residential house, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied — the very occurrence of the accident was proof of the Nigam's negligence and the burden shifted upon the Nigam to establish otherwise.
Critically, an independent inquiry conducted by the Chief Electricity Inspector under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 had already fixed responsibility on the Nigam. The Nigam had accepted this finding and paid compensation under the policy — thereby accepting its own liability. The Court held that having done so, the Nigam could not now resile from its accepted culpability.
On the Allegation That the Father Extended the Balcony
The Nigam's counsel sought to deflect liability by alleging that the petitioner's father had illegally extended the balcony of the house towards the HT line, and that the Nigam bore no fault. The Court dismissed this submission firmly, noting that no material whatsoever had been placed on record to substantiate the allegation. The Chief Electricity Inspector's report had also proceeded on this factual position and still fixed responsibility on the Nigam.
On Contributory Negligence of a Child
The Court categorically held that the concept of contributory negligence has no application to a child of tender age. Relying on a Division Bench ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Abdul Rahaman, the Court observed that "a child functions according to his own reasoning and 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." A child aged six playing on her own terrace, drawn by a sound towards the balcony, cannot in law or in equity be found contributorily negligent.
On Quantum of Compensation — Comprehensive Assessment
The Court undertook a meticulous and principled assessment of just compensation, drawing upon a rich body of Supreme Court precedent on personal injury, child victims and electrocution cases.
On notional income, the Court adopted Rs. 20,000/- per month for the six-year-old petitioner, noting that it had recently in Sandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab (decided February 13, 2026) applied Rs. 22,500/- for a 23-year-old university student. The Court added 40% towards future prospects as mandated by the Supreme Court in Sidram v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, and applied a multiplier of 18, yielding Rs. 60,48,000/- as the income component before functional disability reduction.
On functional disability, the Court noted that while the disability certificate recorded 92% disability in relation to the right arm, photographs on record also showed contracture of the index finger of the left hand — a disability not quantified in the certificate. Doing justice to the complete picture, the Court assessed the petitioner's functional disability at 70% of the whole body, arriving at Rs. 42,33,600/- under the income loss head.
On attendant charges, the Court held that the petitioner, having lost her right arm entirely and with impaired left hand function, would require a full-time attendant for life. Applying the multiplier method as mandated by the Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, the Court awarded Rs. 21,60,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- per month x 12 x multiplier 18). The Court specifically noted: "Even if the family members are providing for the said tasks, the petitioner is entitled to award of damages for a wholetime attendant, for every day."
On pain, suffering and loss of amenities, the Court awarded Rs. 15,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, following K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, noting that the petitioner "would have to learn to adjust to and overcome her disability" through her entire life. Rs. 5,00,000/- was awarded for loss of amenities of life and marriage prospects. The Court poignantly observed: "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."
On prosthetic limb and future medical expenses, the Court awarded Rs. 10,00,000/- for an advanced prosthetic arm along with its servicing and periodic replacement, following the Supreme Court's award in Anoop Maheshwari v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2025 SC 4099). The Court added Rs. 5,00,000/- for future medical expenses, noting that "with advancement in medical science, newer treatments and therapies shall become available in future…at least, the financial security to be able to afford such treatment in future, is likely to serve as some solace." Transportation and special diet charges were assessed at Rs. 1,00,000/-.
The total compensation was thus computed at Rs. 99,93,600/- — over and above the Rs. 18,92,311/- already received under the policy — with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till realization.
On the Challenge to the Compensation Policy
The petitioner also challenged the instructions dated 15.07.2019 on the grounds that they applied the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 uniformly to children and adults alike, with no separate provision for future prospects, inflation, mental agony, marriage prospects or caregiver expenses for minors. The Court declined to strike down or read down the policy. It held that compensation under the policy was in the nature of a humanitarian concession granted on a no-fault liability basis, and that a concession cannot be challenged on the ground of inadequacy. Crucially, since Clause 4 of the policy already preserved all additional legal remedies, the policy did not infringe any vested right of the petitioner. The petitioner's full entitlement to just compensation was being separately recognised and awarded.
On Disbursement and Protection of the Minor's Interest
The Court issued structured directions to protect the compensation from misuse during the petitioner's minority. Ninety percent of the total compensation is to be deposited in fixed deposits in the petitioner's name under joint guardianship of her parents in a nationalized bank at Ateli Mandi. Monthly withdrawals of Rs. 30,000/- from accrued interest are permitted for the petitioner's daily needs including nutritious food, attendant cost, and educational expenses. Liberty was reserved to approach the Court for release of additional sums for future medical treatment or prosthetic arm replacement. The entire amount including interest is to be transferred by the Nigam within three months.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling is a landmark in the jurisprudence governing electrocution compensation and child victims. It firmly establishes that a distribution licensee's own humanitarian compensation policy cannot be used as a shield to cap the State's tortious liability, that no child can be found contributorily negligent for an accident caused by a dangerously maintained high tension line running beside a residential building, and that just compensation for a child victim must comprehensively account for the full arc of a life permanently altered — from notional income and attendant charges to lost marriage prospects and the cost of prosthetic limbs yet to be purchased. The judgment is a reminder, in the Court's own words, that compensation in personal injury cases "should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages."
Date of Decision: March 16, 2026
