Jharkhand HC denies additional compensation for electrical accident, urges CSR support for victim [Read Judgment]

Jharkhand: The Jharkhand High Court has delivered a significant judgment, denying additional compensation to a petitioner who claimed to have lost 60% of his eyesight due to an accident involving a live electrical wire.

Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, while disposing of a writ petition, upheld the compensation of Rs. 30,000 already paid to the petitioner and declined to award any further amount.

The court noted that the accident occurred on April 12, 2018, predating the Gazette notification issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission on December 21, 2018. The judge observed, “The clause A2(2.2) clearly provides that the regulation came into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette of the Government of Jharkhand, which was published on 21st December, 2018.”

Addressing the petitioner’s claim for higher compensation based on the newer notification, the court stated, “The accident took place on 12.04.2018, and the claim of compensation by the petitioner, relying upon the Gazette notification dated 21st December 2018, is not acceptable.”

However, recognizing the severity of the petitioner’s injuries, the court suggested that Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) consider extending help through corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. The court noted, “This Court is of the view that, given the petitioner suffered a serious injury, it is also the responsibility of the respondent JBVNL to take all possible care and extend help to the petitioner under corporate social responsibility, so that the suffering of the petitioner is mitigated to some extent.”

The court directed that if the petitioner approaches JBVNL with a representation, the company should consider providing assistance within the legal parameters of CSR. “Accordingly, the petitioner may approach the respondent No. 3 by filing a representation, and if anything is possible within the parameters of law under corporate social responsibility, the respondent No. 3 shall do the needful expeditiously so that the suffering of the petitioner is mitigated,” the court held.

In conclusion, while denying additional monetary compensation, the court encouraged JBVNL to explore CSR avenues to assist the petitioner in light of the injuries sustained from the electrical accident.

[Read Judgment]