Rs 65,000 in 2017 and Rs 1 lakh in 2025 did not close the matter. Upholding Rs 10 lakh additional Compensation For Electrocution Victim injured in 2011, the Allahabad High Court has held that Rs 1.65 lakh already paid by the power corporation did not limit the State Human Rights Commission’s power to recommend more, and that the money ought to have been paid immediately.
Lucknow: Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and its Chief Engineer (Electrical) have lost their writ petition in the Allahabad High Court against an order of the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission directing the corporation to pay an additional Rs 10 lakh to a man who suffered electrocution in 2011 [Chief Engineer Electrical Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Another v. U.P. Human Rights Commission Thru. Chairperson Lko. and 3 Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, sitting at Lucknow, delivered the judgment on November 2, 2026, in Writ C No. 12090 of 2026.
Part-payment is no bar
The Bench held that the Rs 1,65,000 already paid to the victim and his father in two instalments, one in 2017 and the other on February 13, 2025, did not stand in the way of the Commission recommending further compensation.
“Thus, the mere fact that the petitioners have already paid an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- to the victim and his father in two instalments, one in the year 2017 and the other on 13.02.2025, does not fetter the right of the Commission to recommend further compensation over and above the amount already paid.”
Payments, a complaint and the Commission’s order
The electrocution took place in 2011, and an application for compensation was made the same year. The power corporation paid Rs 65,000 to the victim’s father in 2017 and a further Rs 1 lakh directly to the victim on February 13, 2025. The victim had approached the Commission in 2024, before the second payment. By its order dated July 27, 2026, the Commission directed payment of Rs 10 lakh in addition to the Rs 1.65 lakh already paid.
Before the High Court, the corporation argued that the complaint was time-barred under Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, since the incident was of 2011 and the complaint was filed in 2024, and that compensation had already been paid.
Limitation and the duty to maintain lines
The Bench rejected the limitation objection. It held that the violation was a continuing one because the corporation had not paid the compensation required by law, and that the Rs 1 lakh paid after the complaint was filed amounted to an acknowledgement under Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It also referred to Section 22 of the Limitation Act on continuing breaches and torts.
The corporation, the Court observed, was under a statutory duty to maintain its transmission lines so that people’s lives were not exposed to danger. As for the Commission’s power under Section 18(a) of the 1993 Act to recommend compensation where an inquiry discloses a human rights violation or negligence by a public servant, the Bench held that it operates in addition to, and not in derogation of, other provisions.
Dismissal, with a remark on delay
Finding no reason to interfere, the Bench dismissed the writ petition and added a pointed remark on the delay.
“In light of the aforesaid, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commission directing payment of an additional amount of Rs.10 lakhs, which ought to have been paid immediately. In fact, it is to the petitioners’ good fortune that no additional interest has been imposed upon them for the delayed payment of compensation.”
Why the judgment matters
Electrocution from poorly maintained power lines is a recurring cause of death and disability, and victims often wait years for token payments. The ruling confirms that partial payments by a power utility do not close the matter: a State Human Rights Commission can assess the full extent of the violation and recommend further compensation.
The Court’s reading of limitation is equally significant. Treating non-payment of lawful compensation as a continuing violation, and a later part-payment as an acknowledgement, prevents a public body from relying on its own delay to defeat a victim’s complaint.
Case Title: Chief Engineer Electrical Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Another v. U.P. Human Rights Commission Thru. Chairperson Lko. and 3 Others [Writ C No. 12090 of 2026; 2026:AHC-LKO:79068-DB]
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Date of Judgment: November 2, 2026
Appearances: Manish Jauhari for the petitioners; Shikhar Anand for the respondents