Child Electrocution Victim Entitled to Full Compensation Beyond Policy; Compensation Granted under Departmental Policy for Electrocution is only a Humanitarian Concession and Does not Bar a Victim from Claiming Full and Just Compensation under Public Law: P&H High Court Awards ₹99.93 Lakh
Case Name: Anshu v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 16 March 2026
Citation: CWP-17880-2023
Bench: Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi & Justice Vikas Suri
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that compensation granted under departmental policy for electrocution is only a humanitarian concession and does not bar a victim from claiming full and just compensation under public law. The Court further held that in cases of electrocution involving children, principles of strict liability apply and contributory negligence cannot be attributed.
Summary: The petitioner, a minor girl aged about six years at the time of the incident, suffered severe burn injuries after coming into contact with an 11 kV high tension line passing dangerously close to her house. As a result of the accident, her right arm was amputated and she suffered 92% permanent disability.
Initially, compensation of ₹18.92 lakh was awarded under the policy dated 15.07.2019 framed by the electricity distribution company. The petitioner accepted the amount under protest and approached the High Court seeking enhancement, contending that the policy failed to account for critical heads such as future prospects, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of amenities.
The respondents argued that the compensation had already been awarded as per policy and no further amount was payable. They also attempted to attribute negligence to the petitioner’s family.
The Court examined the statutory and legal framework and held that electricity is an inherently dangerous activity, attracting strict liability. It observed that the distribution licensee has a duty to ensure safety and prevent harm from high voltage lines. The Court further held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied and negligence stood established.
On the issue of maintainability, the Court held that compensation granted under the policy is in addition to other remedies and does not extinguish the right to seek just compensation under public law.
The Court rejected the plea of contributory negligence, observing that a child of tender age cannot be expected to foresee or avoid such danger. It emphasized that a child’s actions are governed by instinct and innocence, and liability cannot be shifted onto them.
On quantification, the Court applied settled principles governing personal injury compensation, including notional income, future prospects, multiplier method, and non-pecuniary damages. It also awarded amounts under multiple heads such as attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, future medical expenses, and cost of prosthetic limb.
The total compensation was assessed at ₹99,93,600, significantly enhancing the amount earlier granted under policy.
Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed. The High Court enhanced the compensation to ₹99,93,600 with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition, clarifying that this amount is over and above the compensation already paid under the policy.