Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Expedited Compensation for Electrocution Victims as per PSPCL Policy: "Apply Policy to Pending Cases, Subject to Proving Negligence"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, under the bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, has directed the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL) to efficiently process and disburse compensation claims for victims of electrocution. This order pertains to multiple petitions seeking redress for fatal and non-fatal injuries sustained due to electrocution.

The judgment, dated December 15, 2023, encompasses a wide array of petitions, ranging from CWP-11626-2023 to CWP-27831-2023. These petitions involve regular and contractual employees of the Electricity Department and private individuals who have suffered due to electrocution.

Justice Bhardwaj observed, "The PSPCL's policy, detailed under Office Order No.10, I.R.O. 676, Dated 08.12.2023, must be applied to all pending cases, subject to determination of the negligence of the Authority concerned." This statement underscores the court's emphasis on the necessity of a systematic approach to compensation in cases of electrocution.

The policy outlined by PSPCL includes specific provisions for different categories of victims – regular employees, contractual workers, and private individuals (both adults and minors). The compensation structure is aligned with the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

In his detailed order, Justice Bhardwaj included an illustrative table demonstrating the calculation of compensation amounts under various scenarios. This move is seen as an effort to bring clarity and transparency to the compensation process.

The court directed the petitions to be disposed of with instructions for the petitioners to approach PSPCL with their compensation claims, as per the policy. Additionally, the PSPCL and other respondent authorities have been instructed to consider and decide upon these claims expeditiously and within the time frame stipulated in the policy.

 

Date of Decision: 15 August 2023

PARAMJEET SINGH VS PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. 

Latest Legal News