The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently ordered the payment of ₹20 lakh as compensation to a youth who suffered 78 percent disability after being electrocuted by an exposed wire in 2007 [Abrar Ahmad Tantray V/s State of J&K Th. PDD].
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul delivered the judgment on July 22, noting that no compensation had been provided for the incident.
The Court also dismissed the objections raised by the Jammu and Kashmir Power Department regarding the delay in filing the compensation claim.
“There is no dispute about the 78% disability of the petitioner due to the electric shock he suffered at the age of eight on March 9, 2007… the petitioner has a trans-elbow amputation on the left side with scarring/puckering of the lung skin, and the percentage of disability is around 78% from an orthopedic perspective… the petitioner also has scars on both thighs and a deformity, which amounts to an additional 15% disability. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be denied compensation, as the respondents have argued,” the Court stated.
The Court was hearing a petition filed in 2018 by 21-year-old Abrar Ahmad Tantray, who sought compensation for the electrocution he suffered as an 8-year-old due to an uncovered electric transformer.
He also requested that the government consider him for a suitable job according to his qualifications, so he would not feel dependent and handicapped for life.
Abrar was playing with other children outside when he received an electric shock from a snapped 11 KV line wire in Kujjar Kulgam village.
The electrocution resulted in severe burn injuries on the left side of his body, and part of his arm had to be amputated, leaving him with a 78 percent permanent disability.
The State opposed his 2018 plea for compensation, citing a nine-year delay, although the authorities admitted that the electrocution incident occurred.
The Court was also informed that after the incident, Abrar’s case had been recommended for relief and rehabilitation on humanitarian grounds, and a letter was sent to the Development Commissioner, Power, in October 2007.
However, the Court found that no compensation had been paid.
Consequently, it ordered the authorities to pay ₹20 lakh as compensation to the petitioner, along with an interest of 6 percent per annum from the date of the petition’s filing (2018) until the payment is made.
Advocate Areeb Kanth represented the petitioner.
Additional Advocate General Alla ud Din Ganai and Advocate Shaila Shameem represented the respondent authorities.
