RAJENDRA MENON, J.

1. Seeking exception to an order passed by the learned writ Court in W.P.(C) 6349/2014 dismissing the petition filed, claiming compensation on account of death of appellants’ 14 year old son, Master Akshat Singhal, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

2. Appellants herein are the parents of Master Akshat Singhal, a 14 year old boy, who was victim of an unfortunate incident that occurred in the evening of 05.07.2014 when Akshat with his father (appellant No.1 herein) had gone to Sanjay Park, New Govind Puri to play with his friends. While Akshat was playing with his friends, his father went off for a walk around the park. The children were playing cricket and in the course of playing, Akshat was required to fetch the ball when it went to a place in one corner of the park under a high mast light pole. While picking up the ball, hands of Akshat touched an electric cable which was lying there. Consequently, he was electrocuted and died on the spot. Even though he was removed to the hospital, he was declared dead on reaching the hospital. An FIR bearing No.414/2014 was lodged with the local police station. An autopsy report was prepared and in the course of investigation it was revealed that the cause of the death was ventricular fibrillation as a result of electrocution.

3. Claiming compensation for the death of their child, the writ petition in question was filed and it was the case of the appellants before the writ Court that the park is maintained by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) – respondent No.1 herein and inside the park and within its peripheries, all electrical installations have been erected by respondent No.2 – BSES inter alia contending that the respondents are jointly responsible for the negligence which resulted in death of their only son. The writ petition in question was filed claiming a compensation of Rs.45 lakhs with interest and other benefits.

4. Various submissions were made before the writ Court. Counter affidavits were filed by both the respondents. The EDMC, respondent No.1 came out with a stand that lighting around the park and inside the park is the responsibility of the electricity distribution company BSES, respondent No.2, who has to maintain all electrical installation and connection and therefore respondent No.1 sought exoneration from the charge of negligence and attributed the entire liability on respondent No.2 by producing various reports and various other inquiry documents.

5. It was tried to be established by respondent No.1 from these reports that the PVC wires belong to BSES and they were responsible for its maintenance and respondent No.1 pleaded exoneration from the liability.

6. On the other hand, respondent No.2 contends that it was the responsibility of the EDMC to maintain the park, installation of electrical fittings etc. inside the park and the only responsibility of the electricity company was only to provide electricity to the park and the consequential responsibility of maintaining the poles, installation, wires etc. within the park was of the EDMC and the electricity supply company in no way can be saddled with any responsibility for maintaining the park.

7. Various objections were raised and the case before the writ Court was with regard to liability, inter se between the respondents. The learned writ Court examined various aspects of the matter including the Accidents Committee’s report dated 09.07.2014, the documents and other material that has come on record and in para 14 of its judgment recorded the following findings:

“14. Noting the conflicting stands of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, this Court is of the firm view that disputed questions of fact have arisen. There is no doubt that the victim had succumbed to his death on the fateful day and the cause of death was electrocution. This electrocution had taken place in Sanjay Park. The negligence appears to be writ large. Till this point of time, all fact