SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 2629

DELHI HIGH COURT
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Harinder Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Add.District and Sessions Judge & Ors. - Resopndent
W.P.(C) 14129/2009
Decided On : 04-05-2012

Advocates:
PRESENT:Mr. Pankaj Batra, Adv. for Petitioner.
Ms. Aunish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advs. for R-1.,
Mr. L. K. Garg, Adv. for R-2 to 4., Mr. Mohit Mathur with Mr. Manoj Pant, Advs. for R-5.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Exemplary compensation - Fall of district Court sign board on the head of petitioner - Medical report show 70% permanent disability - Defence taken - Act of God - Evidence on record show that the respondent failed to take reasonable precaution to prevent the accident - Defence not available to them - Petitioner entitle for compensation - Petition stands disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to claim exemplary compensation from the respondents of Rs. 10 lacs on account of her suffering permanent injuries due to their negligence and failure to fulfill their duty of care owed to the petitioner. The petitioner also claims an amount of Rs. 11,52,000/- towards expenses of her personal attendant that she would have to employ for the rest of her life; Rs. 15,000/- p.a. to meet her medical expenses, conveyance etc., and; compensation on account of loss of earning. Petitioner also claims litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/- from the said respondents.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she had gone to Rohini Court Complex on 26.05.2008 to attend her case arising from her matrimonial dispute with her husband. All of a sudden, the District Court Sign Board with the inscription “District Court Rohini”, written both in English and Hindi, fell on her head from the top of the Court building. She was instantly taken to ‘Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Delhi’ in drowsy and disoriented state. Various diagnostic tests were performed on her. She was shifted to ‘Park Hospital, New Delhi’ where further tests such as MRI of the Brain were performed. These tests established the extent of internal injury suffered by the petitioner. Thereafter, she was shifted to ‘Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi’. An FIR was registered at Police Post Rohini Court by the SHO, Prashant Vihar Police Station vide FIR No. 318 on 26.05.2008 under Section 337 IPC against unknown persons. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the FIR dated 26.05.2008. She has also filed the MLC recorded at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital.

3. The FIR, inter alia, records that it was telephonically informed that near Rohini Court one sign board had fallen on a lady. The sign board was found in a totally broken condition on the ground, which was fastened at the 5th Floor of the Court building. Upon reaching Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital at Madhuban Chowk, the injured, i.e., the petitioner was found in a condition wherein she could not be questioned. The time of occurrence recorded in the FIR is 09.30 am on 26.05.2008. The place of occurrence recorded is Main Hall, Rohini Court Complex near Gate No.1. The MLC recorded at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, inter alia, states

“Brought by some passerby Mr. Naveen and other from Distt. Court, Rohini”

“Alleged history of sustaining injury when a large board fell over the patient-Harvinder Kaur due to rains and wind”

“History of unconsciousness”

“Opinion and examination Drowsy, moving all 4 limbs”

4. The petitioner has placed on record the site map prepared by the police authorities on 26.05.2008, which shows the location of the sign board before and after it fell on the ground. The petitioner has also filed on record photocopy of a photograph which shows the location where the sign board was affixed before it fell to the ground.

5. The petitioner has placed on record the certificate issued by ‘Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi’ showing that she has suffered mental disability to the tune of 70%. This disability has been classified as permanent, which is not likely to improve. It also states that the petitioner cannot earn her livelihood and will remain dependant on her guardian all through her life. She needs regular treatment and follow up.

6. The petitioner has also placed on record her educational certificates. It appears that she passed the Delhi Secondary School Examination in the year 1986 and B.A. (Hons.) Political Science from Delhi University in the year 1991, obtaining second division. She obtained a degree of Master of Arts in the year 1993 also from the Delhi University in second division.

7. The submission of t

















































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top