The Jharkhand High Court addressed a compensation claim by Laltu Parira, who suffered serious injuries, including 60% loss of eyesight, after a live wire accident in April 2018. The petitioner argued for enhanced compensation, citing a Gazette notification by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC) issued in December 2018, which he believed warranted higher compensation.
Court’s Stance on Compensation
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, who presided over the case, ruled against the petitioner’s request for additional compensation. The court held that the accident occurred in April 2018, prior to the issuance of the Gazette notification in December of the same year. Since the regulation came into effect only after the accident, the petitioner could not claim benefits under the new guidelines. The court emphasized that the regulation explicitly stated it would be applicable from the date of its publication, December 21, 2018. Therefore, the petitioner’s reliance on the notification for enhanced compensation was not valid.
Compensation Amount and Legal Argument
The petitioner was awarded ₹30,000 as compensation based on the circulars applicable at the time of the incident. Parira’s legal team argued that this amount was insufficient, especially considering the petitioner’s severe injuries. They pointed out that the new regulations should have been retrospectively applied. However, the court dismissed this argument, noting that the compensation was appropriately calculated based on the 40% visual impairment suffered by the petitioner and in line with the relevant circulars at the time of the accident. The respondents, including the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL), defended the compensation amount, stating it was in accordance with the law when the accident occurred.
CSR Responsibility and Mitigating Petitioner’s Suffering
Although the court refused to grant additional compensation under the Gazette notification, it directed the JBVNL to explore the possibility of aiding the petitioner through their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Justice Choudhary remarked that, given the petitioner’s significant injuries, the company had a responsibility to alleviate his suffering, even if not through formal compensation. The court suggested that the petitioner could approach the JBVNL to seek support within the legal framework of CSR, and the respondents were encouraged to extend any feasible assistance under the CSR scheme.
Final Observations and Court’s Decision
The Jharkhand High Court’s refusal to enhance compensation was grounded in the technicality that the Gazette notification came into force after the date of the accident. The judgment underlined the importance of adhering to legal timelines and regulations, emphasizing that retrospective application of new laws is not always permissible. The petitioner was left with the original compensation of ₹30,000 but was provided with the opportunity to seek additional help through the JBVNL’s CSR initiatives. The court urged the respondents to act promptly if they could extend any assistance under these initiatives.
Conclusion
This ruling highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking compensation when regulatory changes occur after an incident. The court’s balanced approach ensures that while formal compensation is denied based on legal constraints, alternative avenues for assistance are explored to mitigate the petitioner’s hardships.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.