Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
Munni Devi - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Another - Respondent
W.P.(C). No. 8432 of 2018
Decided On : 15-01-2021
Negligence - Compensation - Electricity Act, 2003 - [ELECTROCUTION] - [COMPENSATION] - [Electricity Act, 2003, Section 135] - The court found that the death of the deceased took place due to the negligence of respondent No.2/BSES RPL. The court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence. The court also referred to the judgments of Shyam Sunder & Ors v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 1 SCC 690 and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 551 to support its conclusion. The court held that respondent No.2/BSES RPL is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compensation for the electrocution death of her son due to the negligence of respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner's son was pursuing a degree in Bachelor of Science and lost his life due to electrocution when an exposed live electric wire fell on his bicycle. The petitioner's husband approached the court for a status report, and despite the report confirming electrocution, no action was taken by the Police against the respondents. The petitioner, a housewife, and her husband, a laborer, sought compensation for the loss of their son.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death of the deceased took place due to the negligence of respondent No.2/BSES RPL. The court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence. The court also referred to the judgments of Shyam Sunder & Ors v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 1 SCC 690 and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 551 to support its conclusion. The court held that respondent No.2/BSES RPL is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the death of the deceased was due to the negligence of respondent No.2/BSES RPL and whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence. It also referred to the judgments of Shyam Sunder & Ors v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 1 SCC 690 and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 551 to support its conclusion. The court held that respondent No.2/BSES RPL is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs only) as compensation to the petitioner. The court directed that the compensation amount will be the liability of respondents No.2 and 3 jointly and severally. The payment shall be made to the petitioner within three months from the date of the judgment failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to simple interest @ 10% per annum with effect from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking an appropriate writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs.30 lakhs or any other reasonable compensation to the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that her son Mintu Kumar Jha who was 23 years old was pursuing a degree in Bachelor of Science from Indira Gandi Open University. While passing through House No.D-62, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi on his bicycle on 16.05.2007 at around 8.05 pm he lost his life due to electrocution when an exposed live electric wire fell down upon his bicycle. This act was totally attributable to the negligence of the respondents.
3. It is stated that the post-mortem report of the deceased son which was conducted by AIIMS on 16.05.2007 clearly shows that death was caused due to electrocution and all injuries of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature.
4. It is stated that the petitioner’s son was only 23 years of old and was at the prime of his youth. However, due to carelessness and negligence of the respondents, the petitioner lost her son at a young age. The petitioner’s son was pursuing a degree in Bachelor of Science and had a very bright future ahead of him. It is further stated that subsequently Mr.Sonu Kumar Jha, the petitioner’s other son who was suffering from acute depression due to his brother’s death also passed away on 27.10.2010.
5. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter regularly visited PS Kalkaji to enquire about the death of her son but no information regarding the same was given. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband approached the court of Sh.Nishant Garg, MM, Saket Courts, New Delhi calling for a status report of the incident of 16.05.2007. The court passed an order directing Delhi Police to file a status report. The status report dated 08.12.2017 was filed by the Delhi Police where it was clearly stated that the death of the deceased Sh.Mintu Kumar Jha was caused due to electrocution and all injuries were ante-mortem. Despite this, no FIR was registered by the Police against the respondents.
6. On coming to know about the status report, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 22.12.2017 to respondent No.2/BSES Rajdhani Power Limited demanding compensation but no reply has been received.
7. It is stated that the petitioner is a housewife, suffering from acute anemia while her husband is a labourer and earns about Rs.48000/- per annum. They have no other source of income and her husband is suffering from asthma and poor eye sight. The petitioner has lost her two sons. The petitioner is a resident of Darbhanga, Bihar and is running from pillar to post in Delhi to get justice for their son who died due to negligence of the respondents. As the petitioner’s husband is unable to earn their livelihood, the burden of taking care of the family has fallen on the only surviving son Sh.Amit Kumar Jha who is doing a private job and has to sustain his own family also. It is pointed out that aggrieved by the non-action of the respondents of not giving compensation or not giving a reply to the legal notice; the petitioner along with her husband approached the District Court, Saket by filing a suit seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs. However, the suit was withdrawn by the petitioner due to technical defects and the court was pleased to dismiss the suit as withdrawn with liberty to approach this court vide order dated 24.04.2018. Hence, the present writ petition.
8. Respondent No.1/Govt. of NCT of Delhi has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the statutory structure of the Electricity Companies in Delhi has been explained. The power distribution companies were formed and the distribution businesses have been transferred to the said three distribution companies including respondent No.2/BSES RPL, as per Delhi Electricity Reforms Act. It is stated that the facts of this case pertain to an incident which has happened in the jurisdiction of the distribution licensee
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of res ipsa loquitur can be applied to establish negligence in cases of electrocution. The court also emphasized the liability o....
The court established that state entities managing hazardous activities have a strict liability to compensate victims for harm caused, irrespective of any negligence on the part of the victims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of strict liability, holding the respondents absolutely liable to compensate for the death caused by their negligence in maintaining ....
The court confirmed that governmental entities can be held strictly liable for damages resulting from negligence in maintaining public safety regarding hazardous activities, including electricity sup....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the concept of strict liability, and the duty of the electricity department to maintain elec....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
