Case at a Glance
A man suffered electrocution in 2011 and the power distribution company paid only ₹65,000 to his father in 2017 and ₹1 lakh to him in February 2025. On his 2024 complaint, the U.P. Human Rights Commission on 27 July 2026 directed the company to pay an additional ₹10 lakh. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the company’s writ petition, holding that non-payment of compensation was a continuing violation, that the 2025 payment was an acknowledgment, and that earlier payments do not limit the Commission’s power under Section 18(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to recommend further compensation.
The victim (respondent no. 4) was electrocuted in 2011, and an application for compensation was made in the same year. The Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam paid ₹65,000 to the victim’s father in 2017. In 2024, a complaint was filed before the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission. After the complaint, on 13 February 2025, a further payment was made to the victim, taking the total to ₹1,65,000.
By order dated 27 July 2026, the Commission directed the power company to pay an additional ₹10 lakh over and above the ₹1,65,000 already paid. The Chief Engineer (Electrical) of the company and another officer challenged that order in a writ petition under Article 226, arguing that the complaint was barred by Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, since the incident was of 2011 and the complaint was filed only in 2024. The Commission relied on the Division Bench decision in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. National Human Rights Commission, (2010) 05 AHC CK 0081.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the Human Rights Commission barred by limitation from entertaining a 2024 complaint about a 2011 electrocution, and could it recommend additional compensation when some compensation had already been paid?
Unpaid Compensation Is a Continuing Wrong
The Division Bench held that the violation of human rights in this case was a continuing violation, because compensation had not been paid as required by law. The ₹1 lakh payment made after the complaint amounted to an acknowledgment under Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 22 of that Act, dealing with continuing breaches and torts, also applied. The limitation objection under Section 36(2) of the 1993 Act therefore failed.
On merits, the Court held that a power corporation has a statutory duty to maintain its transmission lines so that people’s lives are not endangered; negligence by its officials amounts to a violation of human rights, and the Commission was right to proceed under the 1993 Act. Examining the preamble and Section 18, the Court held that the power under Section 18(a) to recommend compensation is not restricted by other provisions, and the fact that some compensation had already been paid “does not in any manner create a fetter in the right of Commission” to recommend more. The Court observed that the additional ₹10 lakh ought to have been paid immediately, and noted that no interest had been imposed for the delay.
What the Court Actually Held
- Non-payment of compensation for the 2011 electrocution was a continuing violation; the 2024 complaint was not barred by Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
- The ₹1 lakh paid after the complaint was an acknowledgment under Section 20 of the Limitation Act; Section 22 on continuing wrongs also applied.
- A power corporation’s negligence in maintaining transmission lines that endangers life is a human rights violation the Commission can examine.
- Earlier payments do not limit the Commission’s power under Section 18(a) to recommend further compensation; the order for an additional ₹10 lakh was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Electrocution by sagging or poorly maintained lines is common in rural India, and victims often receive small, delayed payments. This ruling confirms that a Human Rights Commission can step in and recommend fair compensation.
- It treats prolonged non-payment as a continuing wrong, so the one-year limit in Section 36(2) does not automatically shut out old incidents where compensation is still due.
- Token payments made by a utility cannot cap what the Commission may recommend.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Victims and Families
- If a power utility’s negligence caused injury or death and compensation is unpaid or inadequate, a complaint to the State Human Rights Commission is one available route.
- Keep records of every payment and application; a payment after your complaint can count as an acknowledgment.
- An old incident does not necessarily bar a complaint where compensation continues to remain unpaid.
For Counsel
- Plead continuing violation and acknowledgment (Sections 20 and 22 of the Limitation Act) against a Section 36(2) objection.
- Rely on the statutory duty of distribution companies to maintain lines safely to establish a human rights violation.
- Cite U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. National Human Rights Commission together with this Division Bench ruling.
Key Takeaways
- Unpaid compensation can make a human rights violation a continuing one.
- A payment after the complaint can operate as an acknowledgment of liability.
- Section 18(a) lets the Commission recommend compensation over and above sums already paid.
- The power company’s challenge was dismissed; the ₹10 lakh was to have been paid immediately.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Human Rights Commission award compensation for electrocution?
Under Section 18(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission can recommend payment of compensation. The High Court upheld such a recommendation of ₹10 lakh against a power distribution company.
Is a complaint about a 2011 incident filed in 2024 time-barred?
Not in this case. The High Court held that non-payment of compensation was a continuing violation and that a later payment was an acknowledgment, so Section 36(2) did not bar the complaint.
Does an earlier small payment stop further compensation?
No. The Court held that prior payments do not fetter the Commission’s power to recommend additional compensation.
Conclusion
Fourteen years after the electrocution, the Allahabad High Court has refused to let a power utility hide behind limitation or behind the small amounts it had already paid. It upheld the Human Rights Commission’s recommendation of an additional ₹10 lakh and said the amount ought to have been paid immediately.
Practical takeaway: Victims of electrocution caused by poorly maintained lines can approach the State Human Rights Commission even years later if compensation remains unpaid; utilities should expect token payments to be treated as acknowledgments, not as full settlement.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com