2020 Supreme(Del) 889
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jayant Nath, J.
Meera & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
MCD & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2303 of 2016
Decided On : 24-08-2020
Siddharth, Advocate, Mohd Danish, Advocate, Arnav Sanyal, Advocate, Sanjeev Uniyal, Advocate, Dhawal Uniyal, Advocate
Headnote:
Negligence - Death due to Electrocution - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A - Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 - Compensation awarded to the petitioners due to the negligence of respondent No. 1 in the death of the deceased Manish - Award of Rs. 8 lakhs to be paid by respondent No. 1 North DMC within eight weeks from today
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of Late Sh.Manish who lost his life on 31.08.2014 due to alleged gross negligence on the part of officials of respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation of Delhi and respondent No.2-TATA Power DDL on account of electrocution. The deceased was electrocuted when personnel of respondent No.1 directed him to pull the handle while installing a High Mast Light Pole which was to be electrified by respondent No. 2. The police registered a FIR under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. The police report confirmed the cause of death as electrocution. The respondents filed counter-affidavits claiming that the contractor was responsible for compliance of the statutory terms and conditions. The court found the negligence of respondent No. 1 to be apparent on the face of the record and awarded compensation to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the negligence of respondent No. 1 to be apparent on the face of the record and awarded compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs to the petitioners to be shared jointly by the petitioners No. 1 and 2. The said payment shall be made by respondent No. 1 North DMC within eight weeks from today.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could grant relief to the petitioners due to the negligence of respondent No. 1 in the death of the deceased Manish.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no limitations or fetter on the powers except self-imposed limitations. The court has the power to award monetary compensation in appropriate cases. Where the negligence of the state/state authorities is clear from the record, appropriate compensation to the family of the victims can be awarded.
Final Decision: The court awarded compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs to the petitioners to be shared jointly by the petitioners No. 1 and 2. The said payment shall be made by respondent No. 1 North DMC within eight weeks from today.
JUDGMENT
Jayant Nath, J. - This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are the legal heirs of Late Sh.Manish (aged 23 years) who lost his life on 31.08.2014 as a result of alleged gross negligence on the part of officials of respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Now, North Delhi Municipal Corporation), Electric Division-I, Kingsway Camp Delhi and respondent No.2-TATA Power DDL on account of electrocution.
2. The case of the petitioners is that Late Sh. Manish lost his life on 31.08.2014 on account of electrocution when personnel of respondent No.1 directed the deceased Manish to pull the handle while installing a High Mast Light Pole which was to be electrified by respondent No. 2. The High Mast Light Pole touched a passing unprotected wire maintained by respondent No. 2 on account of which Sh.Manish got an electric shock and fell down on the road. He was taken to BJRM Hospital and later, to Dr. BSA Hospital where he was declared brought dead.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have suffered great pain, agony, mental torture and shock due to untimely death of their elder son aged about 23 years. They have also lost love and affection which cannot be compensated in money.
4. The police who were also called registered a FIR bearing FIR No.503/2014 under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code at P.S.Mahendra Park against the accused persons i.e. officials of respondent No. 1.The petition also points that on 11.08.2015, petitioner No. 1 moved an application calling for a status report from the police officials (The name of the court is not mentioned). A status report was filed by the police. The status report states that as per the statement of the complainant-Sh. Ravinder Kumar, he along with his friends was standing in front of House No. I-2000 when the workers of MCD were installing a High Mast Street Light. Sh.Manish Kumar was also standing there. One person out of the MCD personnel requested Sh.Manish to pull the handle fixed on the pole so that the light could be uplifted. While Manish was following the directions, the circle of High Mast Light touched an overhead cable wire as a result of which Sh.Manish fell down on the road. He was immediately taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. An appropriate FIR under Section 304A IPC was registered. Post Mortem report confirms that the cause of death was electrocution. During investigation, the concerned MCD Department on 05.06.2015 gave a reply that the spot was being looked after by a private agency, namely, M/s. Perfect Electric Work on contract basis. Therefore, the report states that a notice was given to M/s. Perfect Electric work. The said Perfect Electric Work provided a copy of the agreement and informed that the contract was from 05.03.2014 for a period of only two months and under the agreement, they have competed that period. The incident is dated31.08.2014. This report is dated 28.08.2015. It is clear that despite lapse of one year from the incident, the police have been dilly dallying and have not been able to even complete the investigation.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 1 on behalf of North Delhi Municipal Corporation. Preliminary objections have been taken including that the petitioners have approached National Human Rights Commission and hence, the writ petition would not lie. It is also pleaded that that there are disputed questions of facts stated in the writ petition which cannot be entertained in the present writ jurisdiction. It is further pleaded that the contract for installing of 4 number Semi High Mast Light Poles was awarded to M/s. Perfect Electric Work on 05.03.2014. It was the M/s. Perfect Electric Work who was working at the site when the mishap occurred. The incident was informed by the site supervisor of the contractor to the concerned J.E. (Elect) of the answering respondent. It is further claimed that a FIR was registered where it was alleged that North DMC employees had asked