It is most significant to note that while upholding the liability of BSF, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled The Superintending Engineer, Distribution City, PSPCL and others Vs Union of India and others and so also Union of India and others Vs Preeti and others in LPA-1360-2023 (O&M) and LPA-1547-2023 (O&M) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:PHHC:157726:DB that was pronounced just recently on 13.11.2025 has rejected the Union of India’s appeal that had been filed against the Single Judge’s order to pay over Rs 60 lakh as compensation to the family of a teacher who died due to electrocution at the Wagah border in Amritsar. It held that it was the duty of the BSF to stop the person from entering the area. We need to note here that the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikas Suri accepted the PSPCL’s contention that it was not liable as the area where the accident took place is in exclusive jurisdiction of the BSF.
Before stating anything else, it is stated in this oral judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi for a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikas Suri of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh that, “These are the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of respective days delay in filing the appeal(s). Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application(s), the same are allowed and the respective days delay in filing the appeal(s) is condoned.”
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Both the appeals, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, are being disposed of through a common order as common question of law is involved in both the appeals.”
As we see, the Division Bench then discloses in para 2 that, “The present appeals have been preferred against the order dated 01.02.2023 passed in CWP-9825-2016 by the learned Single Judge by which, the respondents herein, i.e. family of deceased Narender Kumar have been allowed compensation of Rs.60 lakh (approximately).”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that, “The appeal (LPA-1360-2023) has been preferred by the appellant – Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) who has been held jointly and severally liable with Union of India (appellant in LPA-1547-2023) raising a grievance that the place where the electrocution of deceased Narender Kumar took place, was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) and no employee of the PSPCL is allowed therein so as to maintain the said electricity connections in accordance with the rules and regulations, so as to avoid any mishap and therefore, any mishap which occurs at a place, which place is out of bounds for the employees of the PSPCL, PSPCL cannot be made liable for paying such amount of compensation hence, the words used “the respondents” in the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 by the learned Single Judge to hold PSPCL liable for payment of compensation amount needs to be clarified so as to oust the appellant-PSPCL from the liability imposed upon them so as to pay the compensation to the family of deceased Narender Kumar.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 8 that, “With regard to the appeal (LPA-1360-2023), filed the appellant–PSPCL, the factual assertion that the employees of the PSPCL are not allowed to visit the spot where the electrocution took place, and such place was in exclusive jurisdiction of BSF has not been denied by the Union of India as the spot in question is in exclusive control and jurisdiction of the BSF, who are maintaining the same to the exclusion of the employees of the PSPCL.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench points out in para 9 that, “It may be noticed that the said point is adjacent to the International gate between India and Pakistan hence, once, the accidental spot is within the exclusive domain and control of the Union of India, which is being controlled by the BSF, making the PSPCL liable for the same along with BSF cannot be upheld. Unless and until, any negligence on the part of any authority is noticed that such authority was in dereliction of performing its duties or there is no omission to perform the duty which act has led to the accident, the liability of compensating the deceased family for the said accident cannot be fastened upon such authority. The said issue has escaped notice of the learned Single Judge while holding the PSPCL liable to pay the compensation jointly with the other respondents qua the death of Narender Kumar due to electrocution in an area, which was exclusively maintained and controlled even qua electricity points by the BSF.”
It also cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 10 pointing out that, “Further, it has already come on record that in the written statement of the PSPCL, which fact has gone unrebutted that the electricity supply which is given in bulk supply category to the BSF, it is the BSF, who further distributes the same as per their choice inside their area of control by BSF affixing their own operators and pole as per their own requirements. Once, the said assertion has not been denied, any accident which takes place within the area of the BSF, which is solely controlled by them and even the supply of the electricity is also controlled by them to the exclusive of the PSPCL, the appellant-PSPCL cannot be made jointly liable for any accident, which is caused in an area where the jurisdiction to maintain the electricity and to install the operators, is of the BSF, and PSPCL has no role in there apart from supplying electricity to BSF in bulk.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 11 that, “Hence, the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the PSPCL will also be liable jointly for the payment of compensation amount admissible to respondent family, is set aside.”
As things stands, the Division Bench mentions in para 12 that, “With regard to the LPA No.1547 of 2023, which has been filed by the appellant-Union of India through BSF, an argument has been raised that the place of the accident was cordoned off and no one was allowed to enter the same and it was only due to the negligence on part of the deceased of crossing life cordoned off area, the mishap happened and therefore, even the BSF cannot be made liable for the same.”
It is worth paying attention that the Division Bench notes in para 13 that, “It may be noted that nothing has come on record to show that the area was cordoned off not to be accessed by general public in any manner. The area even if, it is to be cordoned off, has to be cordoned off in a manner that no one crosses the same under any circumstances whereas, in the present case, no such fact has come on record to show that the deceased deliberately tried to cross over such area, which is said to be a cordoned off area by UOI.”
Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 14 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Further, it is a conceded position that the area of the accident is just next to the International gate between India and Pakistan. It may be noticed that the said area is controlled and manned by the Officers of the BSF 24 hours without exception hence, even if, somebody was trying to go into a cordoned off area, it becomes the duty of the BSF to stop such person from entering the cordoned off area; the negligence in allowing a person to reach the area where accident occurred is also upon the BSF hence, the amount of compensation, which has been awarded by the learned Single Judge in favour of the deceased, cannot be treated as arbitrary or illegal or without appreciating the facts on record.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 15 that, “Further, no such plea was pressed with regard to the cordoned off area where the accident took place rather, the learned Single Judge has mentioned that the same should have been cordoned off in case, the area projected danger for the general public visiting the area, who were not conversant with the area concerned.”
Most rationally, the Division Bench observes in para 16 that, “Further, even in the Court of Inquiry, which was conducted, no such fact has come on record to show that the area was cordoned off but, still deceased Narender Kumar reached the same without authority. That being so, the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge holding the BSF liable to pay compensation cannot be treated as arbitrary or illegal.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench notes in para 17 that, “Further, while deciding upon an appeal, the perversity in the order impugned is to be seen rather than re-appreciating the facts so as to arrive at a different conclusion. In the present case, the learned counsel for the Union of India has not been able to point out any perversity in the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge either on facts or on law so as to need any intervention at the hands of this Court.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 18 that, “Learned counsel for the claimants submits that despite the fact that two and half years have passed but, yet the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent has not been paid.”
Resultantly and most commendably, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 19 that, “Keeping in view the above said fact, it is held that even upon the amount of compensation awarded in favour of respondent starting from the date of the order, i.e. 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, interest @6% per annum will also be paid on the said compensation so as to compensate the claimant, who despite entitlement and without there being any interim order of stay on such awarded compensation, the Union of India has not released the amount of compensation. Further, the Union of India (BSF) will release the compensation amount admissible to respondent within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order and compliance be placed on record of this order.”
What’s more, the Division Bench then also further directs and holds in para 20 that, “Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.”
Finally, the Division Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 22 that, “Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.”
Sanjeev Sirohi,