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) 3297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
J.R. MIDHA, J.
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Vs.
DHYAN SINGH AND OTHERS - Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 116 of 2007 and CM Nos. 2924-25 of 2007
Decided On : 12-10-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh and Ms. Sangita Rai.
For the Respondents: P.K. Jha, Mr. Anuj Aggarwal and Mr. A.J. Bhambhani.

The government is liable to pay compensation in the event of death of any person in cleaning of septic tanks.

Headnote:

The court held that the government is liable to pay compensation in the event of death of any person in cleaning of septic tanks. The plea of the government that they are not liable for the negligence of the contractor was rejected by the courts. The court also held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to the present case.

Fact of the Case:

Four labourers hired by the contractor of CPWD were cleaning the septic tank at the CRPF Camp, Bawana. The labourers told the contractor that a foul smell was coming out of the septic tank which may be fatal to their lives but the contractor still ordered them to clean the tank whereupon three labourers entered the septic tank and they fell unconscious upon inhaling the poisonous gases in the tank. The fourth labourer, Deepak raised an alaram whereupon Constable Ranbir Singh and Head Constable Dayal Singh reached the spot and went inside the septic tank to save the lives of the labourers. However, both of them were affected by the poisonous gases inside the tank and they fell unconscious. The fire brigade and the police were requisitioned and they pulled out all the men out of the septic tank in a critical condition and they were taken to Babu Jagjivan Memorial Hospital. Head Constable Dayal Singh survived whereas the remaining four persons including Constable Ranbir Singh were declared dead.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the government is liable to pay compensation in the event of death of any person in cleaning of septic tanks. The plea of the government that they are not liable for the negligence of the contractor was rejected by the courts. The court also held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to the present case.

Issues: 1. Whether the government is liable to pay compensation in the event of death of any person in cleaning of septic tanks? 2. Whether the plea of the government that they are not liable for the negligence of the contractor is valid? 3. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to the present case?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles to arrive at its decision: 1. The government is responsible to pay the compensation for death of a worker due to the negligence of the contractor. However, the government can recover the said compensation from the contractor. 2. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur means that the accident speaks for itself. In such cases, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. 3. Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 11,59,052/-. The court also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 5th April, 2003 till the date of payment.

JUDGMENT :

J.R. Midha, J.

1. The Trial Court has passed a decree for Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of respondents No. 1 to 7 and against the appellant which is under challenge in this appeal. On 11th September, 2001, four labourers hired by the contractor of CPWD were cleaning the septic tank at the CRPF Camp, Bawana. The labourers told the contractor that a foul smell was coming out of the septic tank which may be fatal to their lives but the contractor still ordered them to clean the tank whereupon three labourers entered the septic tank and they fell unconscious upon inhaling the poisonous gases in the tank. The fourth labourer, Deepak raised an alaram whereupon Constable Ranbir Singh and Head Constable Dayal Singh reached the spot and went inside the septic tank to save the lives of the labourers. However, both of them were affected by the poisonous gases inside the tank and they fell unconscious. The fire brigade and the police were requisitioned and they pulled out all the men out of the septic tank in a critical condition and they were taken to Babu Jagjivan Memorial Hospital. Head Constable Dayal Singh survived whereas the remaining four persons including Constable Ranbir Singh were declared dead.

2. Constable Ranbir Singh was survived by his widow, parents and four minor children (respondents No. 1 to 7) who filed a suit for recovery against the appellant. Later on, CRPF, employer of the deceased was impleaded as defendant No. 2. Respondents No. 1 to 7 were the plaintiffs, appellant was defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 8 was defendant No. 2 before the Trial Court.

3. The appellant contested the suit on various grounds inter alia that the work of cleaning the septic tank was to be done by the contractor between 10th July, 2001 to 9th August, 2001 and the contractor started the work after the expiry of the said period without seeking the extension from the department and, therefore, the appellant was not responsible for the accident. It was further pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. It was further pleaded that the contractor was held liable for the accident in the preliminary enquiry report, Ex. PW-5/A by the Deputy Welfare Commissioner and the appellant was not responsible for the negligence of the contractor. It was further pleaded that the legal representatives of the deceased were receiving pension and, therefore, they were not entitled to any compensation.

4. The following issues were framed by the Ld. Trial Court on 6th April, 2004 :

1. Whether claim in the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD

2. Whether suit is barred u/s 80 CPC? OPD

3. Whether M/s. Naveen Enterprises had failed to take necessary precaution and for that defendants can be held and liable? OPP

4. Whether deceased Ranbir Singh was doing any official duty at the relevant time or had volunteered? Onus to proof on both the parties.

5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- or any other amount and from which of the defendants?

6. Relief.

5. The plaintiffs examined six witnesses at the trial. PW-1, widow of the deceased and PW-3, father of the deceased deposed that the deceased was 32 years and 6 months old at the time of the accident and was working as a Constable with CRPF at a salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. They estimated their loss at Rs. 13,50,000/-. The respondents No. 1 to 7 issued a legal notice dated 28th January, 2003 to the appellant demanding Rs. 12,00,000/- as compensation. They proved the legal notice dated 28th January, 2003, postal receipts, acknowledgement card and the pension book as Ex. PW-1/A to PW-1/E. PW-2, Record Clerk from Babu Jagjivan Memorial Hospital proved the postmortem report as Ex. PW-2/A. PW-4 from Delhi Police proved FIR No. 331/2001 as Ex. PW-4/A. PW-5 from CPWD proved preliminary enquiry report of Deputy Welfare Commissioner as Ex. PW-5/A. PW-6 from CRPF proved that the deceased had put in 11 years, 5 months and 10 days of service and had 25 year



























































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

AI

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