Tesco WAS ordered to pay a whopping £536,000 fine last week after health and safety failures at their Bracknell North superstore resulted in a child being electrocuted.

The 10-year-old boy suffered from a small burn and pain down his right leg and chest after coming into contact with an exposed electrical supply when reaching for an ice lolly at the Warfield store’s freezer unit in July 2017.

IN FULL: Why Tesco was ordered to pay such a large fine

Following an investigation from the Public Protection Partnership — the trading standards service which represents Bracknell Forest — it became clear the freezer’s rail was known to be loose and had only been addressed with “temporary fixes” of glue or tape some months prior to the accident.

Tesco was ordered to pay £536,000 at Reading Magistrates Court last week after supermarket bosses had previously admitted to two health and safety offences in relation to the incident.

But where does this money go? The News asked the PPP to explain how the money will be split up.

READ MORE: Tesco's statement after being fined for electrocution incident

For each of the health and safety offences, Tesco was ordered to pay £268,000.

Collectively, this money is collected by the court service and goes to the government. In essence, it becomes taxpayer money.

The £25,750.91 the supermarket was ordered to pay in legal costs goes back to Bracknell Forest Council and the PPP to reimburse its costs for its investigation and bringing forward legal proceedings.

In addition to this, Tesco was asked to give up £170 for a victim surcharge, which goes towards a national, shared victim surcharge fund.

READ MORE: Tesco fined £160,000 after out of date garlic bread found at store

The LDRS asked the PPP if it was aware of any compensation for the family of the 10-year-old boy who was injured in the incident.

But an authority spokesperson said the PPP was not involved in anything “that may have occurred” between Tesco and the family.

They continued: “If there has been any form of settlement, this would have been entirely separate to the prosecution process we were directly involved in.”