RAMAN versus UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 17-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 842 
RAMAN 
v. 
UTTAR HARYANABIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 11466 of 2014) 
B 
DECEMBER 17, 2014 
[V. GOPALA GOWDAAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Electricity Act, 2003 - s. 68 -
Electrocution -
Compensation - Four year old boy suffered 100% permanent 
disability in electrocution accident - Boy lost all the amenities 
C and became a deadwood throughout his fife - Award of 
Rs. 60 fakhs compensation by Single Judge of the High 
Court - Rs. 30 fakhs to be deposited in a fixed deposit 
account jointly in the name of the claimant in a nationalized 
Bank, which would be available to the claimant on attaining 
D age of majority, and in case he does not survive, deposit 
amount would be revert back to the respondents- Remaining 
amount of Rs. 30 fakhs to be deposited in a fixed 
deposit account of corpus fund, out of which an interest of 
Rs. 20,0001- p.m. to be paid to the claimant towards the 
E expenses - Division Bench on concession by the counsel 
reduced the monthly amount to Rs. 10,0001- - On appeal, 
held: Compensation awarded by the Single Judge 
restored - However, the direction by Single Judge that if the 
claimant is not alive at the time of attaining the age of majority, 
F the amount deposited would be reverted to the respondent 
is set aside since the same is not legal and valid - Once 
compensation amount is awarded by the Court, it should go 
to the claimant/appellant and after his demise, to his legal 
heirs or representative - Directions issued as regards the 
G mode of payment of amount to the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The compensation awarded at Rs. 60 
lakhs in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the 
H High Court, out of which 30 lakhs were to be deposited 
842 
RAMAN v. UTTAR HARYANABIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. 
843 
jointly in the name of the appellant represented by his A 
parents as natural guardian and the Chief Engineer or 
his nominee representing the respondent-Nigam in a 
nationalised Bank in a fixed deposit till he attains the age 
of majority, is just and proper but we have to set aside 
that portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge B 
directing that if he survives, he is permitted to withdraw 
the amount, otherwise the deposit amount shall be 
reverted back to the respondents as the same is not legal 
and valid for the reason that once compensation amount 
is awarded by the court, it should go to the claimant/ c 
appellant. Therefore, the victims/claimants are legally 
entitled for compensation to be awarded in their favour. 
If the claimants die, then the Succession Act of their 
respective religion would apply to succeed to such 
estate by the legal heirs of victims/ claimants or legal D 
representatives as per the testamentary document if they 
choose to execute the will indicating their desire as to 
whom such estate shall go after their death. [Para 
19][863-D-H; 864-A] 
1.2 The remaining compensation amount of Rs. 30 
E 
lakhs to be deposited in a fixed deposit account in the 
name of the appellant (minor) under joint guardianship 
of the parents of Raman and the Engineer-in-Chief or 
his nominee representing the respondent-Nigam, in the 
Nationalised Bank as corpus fund, out of which an F 
interest of Rs.20,000/- p.m. towards the expenses as 
indicated in sub-para (vi) of the order passed by the 
learned Single Judge, cannot be said to be on the higher 
side, but in our view, the said amount of compensation 
awarded is less and not reasonable and having regard G 
to the nature of 100% permanent disability suffered by 
the appellant, it should have been much higher as the 
appellant requires permanent assistance of an attendant, 
treatment charges as he is suffering from agony and loss 
of marital life, which cannot be compensated by the H 
844 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A amount of compensation awarded by the learned Singh 
Judge of the High Court. Hence, having regard to the 
facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and 
proper to restore the judgment of the learned Single 
Judge on this count and we hold that the directions 
B contained in the said judgment are justifiable to the 
extent indicated above. The Division Bench while 
exercising its appellate jurisdiction should not have 
accepted the alleged requisite instructions received by 
the counsel on behalf of the appellant and treated as ad 
c idem and modified the amount as provided in the order 
of the Single Judge which is w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.