Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
Shri Kehar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1043 OF 2016 & CM APPL. Nos. 35413 OF 2017, 24283 OF 2019
Decided on : 25-08-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Ms. Saraswati Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Satyakam, Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Counsel with Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Anju Thomas, Mr. Shubham Sharma and Mr. Sachin Jain, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Ms. Sayli Petiwale, Advocate for Mr. Anil Mittal, Advocate
Point of Law: Accident claim - Claim of the petitioner rests upon the well settled ‘strict liability’ rule which propounds that irrespective of whether negligence or fault is established, a party may be liable to compensate another for harm or injury caused, arising from certain undisputed actions or omission on the part of such party.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles – Accident claim - Maintainability of writ petition- Strict Liability Rule- Delay and Laches - Victim of an accident at the age of about 21 years which has left him 100% permanently disabled.
Finding of the Court:
The ‘relevant factor’ being as provided in Schedule IV of the Employee’s Compensation Act, which sets-out certain multiplication factors which depend on the age of the employee who suffers permanent disablement or death - there is an unbroken line of judicial precedents from which it is clear that there is no bar or prohibition on this court entertaining and deciding the present claim in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of public law remedy available to the petitioner - Claim of the petitioner rests upon the well settled ‘strict liability’ rule which propounds that irrespective of whether negligence or fault is established, a party may be liable to compensate another for harm or injury caused, arising from certain undisputed actions or omission on the part of such party - When the petition is being finally decided, Bharat is still bed-ridden and unable even to perform his daily chores without assistance of others - In the circumstances, there is no delay or laches that would, in any manner, affect the maintainability of the present petition.
Result: Writ petition disposed of
JUDGMENT :
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
BRIEF FACTUAL BACKDROP
The petitioner’s son Bharat Singh (“Bharat”, for short), who is now about 28 years of age, was the victim of an accident at the age of about 21 years which has left him 100% permanently disabled. Respondent No.1 : the Government of NCT of Delhi (“Delhi Government”, for short) is a formal State respondent in this matter, in which the petitioner has essentially made claims against the other respondents, namely against M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (“BRPL”, for short) which is a power distribution company engaged in the distribution of electricity in certain parts of Delhi; and against M/s Bryn Construction Company (“Bryn”, for short) which is a sole proprietorship concern engaged inter-alia in carrying-out assigned repair and maintenance works for BRPL in relation to the latter’s electricity distribution networks. It was in connection with certain work performed by Bryn for BRPL that Bharat suffered an accident, which has led to the filing of the present petition. The petition has been filed by Bharat’s father, Kehar Singh, since Bharat is stated to be virtually bed-ridden, and therefore not in a position to file or pursue his claim against the respondents.
2. From the record it is gathered that on 25.04.2014, Bharat, who was then about 21 years of age, while working as an electrician with Bryn, was tasked with rectifying a fault in an electricity pole that was causing fluctuation in the electricity supply at a farmhouse in Bijwasan, New Delhi and suffered a fall while performing the task since the electricity pole that he had climbed on, snapped and fell.
3. To facilitate some measure of immediate relief, rehabilitation, care and welfare for Bharat, this court has in various orders made from time-to-time, and with due co-operation of counsel and parties, set-up the following mechanism whereby Bharat has been provided treatment and other facilities and benefits, to the extent possible, to make his daily living comfortable and to give him a source of livelihood and income to sustain himself:
(a) AIIMS has conducted the required surgery, taking remedial measures for fixing a screw that had come unattached on the right pedicle, thereby completing the surgical intervention required for Bharat at that time;
(b) The Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi (“ISIC”, for short) has prepared a regimen of physiotherapy and occupational therapy for Bharat, which he requires to regain strength and skill to live as reasonably as he can, considering the permanent disability suffered;
(c) The State of Uttar Pradesh has provided to Bharat benefits under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme, which includes disability pension of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) per month, to be paid quarterly; free bus and railway travel along with one attendant throughout his lifetime; free medicines and necessary equipment and other aid from the local community health centre; a wheel-chair free of cost; physiotherapy, to begin with at his residence, and subsequently at the community health centre; a lump-sum amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) for construction of a shop for self-employment and a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for running the shop (since Bharat was found to qualified to receive such help), subject of course to the terms and conditions of such welfare measures;
(d) After hearing in the matter was closed on 23.07.2021, and before deciding the matter, this court considered it proper to interact with Bharat in-person in open court with a view to seeing Bharat’s actual condition first-hand. To this end, at the court’s request, Bharat physically appeared before this court on 30.07.2021. On that day, this court recorded the following observations in its order dated 30.07.2021:
“(a) Bharat Singh
