• About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Law Trend
  • google-play
  • apple-store
  • Login
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
No Result
View All Result

High Court Awards 10 Lakh Compensation under Article 226 For Death of a Student by Electrocution

by Law Trend
January 18, 2021
in Court Updates, Trending Stories
4 min read
Del HC new
722
SHARES
2.1k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via WhatsappShare via EmailPinterest

Munni Devi filed a writ petition before Delhi High Court seeking writ of mandamus against Power Company to pay compensation of Rs 30 Lakhs for the death of her son.

Munni Devi submitted 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.

It was 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.

She submitted that her son was only 23 years 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. 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.

Thereafter 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.

The Counsel appearing for the Power Company/Respondent No.2 submitted that:

  1. The writ petition is not maintainable as a writ seeking relief in the nature of compensation for electrocution is not maintainable and does not come within the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 
  2. The present writ is misconceived as a proper remedy was available to the petitioner before the civil court. The petitioner after filing a civil suit has chosen to withdraw the same, and has erroneously invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court. 
  3. The present writ is a bundle of disputed questions of facts which requires extensive evidence by the parties and cannot be decided within the ambit of writ jurisdiction. 
  4. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Ors. v. Smt.Sukamani Das & Anr., 1999 (7) SCC 298 and S.D.O., Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & ORS. v. Timudu Oram, 2005 (6) SCC 156 to plead that this court should not exercise its jurisdiction. 
  5. The allegations of negligence on the part of the said respondents were denied. 

Decision of High Court

Hon’ble Justice Jayant Nath observed that in the present case  facts speak for themselves and the principle of res ipsa loquitur will clearly apply in these facts. A clear averment was made in the petition that respondent No.2/BSES-RPL was guilty of negligence. A young boy has died after coming in contact with a live electric wire that has fallen on the road. In the counter affidavit vague and evasive denial has been made. Clearly based on the above facts and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it is clear that respondent No.2/BSES-RPL is guilty of negligence. 

The court dealt with the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, by referring to the  case of Meera & Anr. v. MCD, W.P.(C) 2303/2016 (upheld by Supreme Court in Fatima & Anr. Vs. National Zoological Park &Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9975/2018 dated 25.09.2018.), wherein the Court relying upin the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Nilabati Behera Alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 held that the Supreme Court and the High Courts have wide powers under Article 32 and Article 226 respectively to forge new tools that may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. 

Further reliance was placed upon the Judgment of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, (1997) 9 SCC 377, wherein the Supreme Court held that there is no limitation or fetters on the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution except self-imposed limitations 

On the issue of delay the Court referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of 

Vetindia Pharmaceutical Limited v. State of U.P. & Anr, (2020) SCC OnLine 912, wherein the Supreme Court held that it is not a mandatory requirement that every delayed petition must be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Compensation

After considering all the aspects, the court observed that a bald claim of Rs 30 lakh has been made in the Writ Petition, without any calculation. Therefore the Court calculated the same, observing that the deceased was doing his graduation from Indira Gandhi Open University. His earning should have been at least around the minimum wages. He would have earned after completing graduation at least Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- a month. Accordingly, the Court awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs only) as compensation to the petitioner.  The Amount has to be paid within 3 months, failing which it shall be paid with 10% interest with effect from the date of Judgment.

READ/DOWNLOAD JUDGMENT

Tags: article 226compensationdelhi high courttrend2

Related Posts

A P Sahi
Court Updates

Former CJ of Madras HC A P Sahi Appointed as Director of National Judicial Academy

March 2, 2021
yuvraj singh
Court Updates

Yuvraj Singh Gets Relief in Casteist Remark Case

March 1, 2021
covid 19 vaccine
Trending Stories

Retired and Sitting Supreme Court Judges and their family members to get Covid vaccine From Tomorrow

March 1, 2021

Advertisement

POPULAR NEWS

  • Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala lawtrend

    Bombay HC Judge who gave “Skin to Skin” POCSO Verdict loses Judgeship Confirmation

    5724 shares
    Share 2290 Tweet 1431
  • Where is the Provision of Using Advocate Sticker on Vehicle?

    5116 shares
    Share 2046 Tweet 1279
  • What is the tenure of protection granted under Anticipatory Bail? :SC 5 Judges

    4827 shares
    Share 1930 Tweet 1206
  • Air Asia Crashes Against Gaurav Taneja; Court Says Airline Suppressed Facts

    4696 shares
    Share 1878 Tweet 1174
  • Husband-Wife Take Oath as High Court Judge

    3270 shares
    Share 1308 Tweet 818
Law Trend

Rabhyaa Foundation has started this platform on values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The object of this platform is to create informed citizens with recent legal updates, Judgments, Legislations of Parliament and State Legislatures, and views of experts in the field of law, in plain and pointed language, for the intellectual development of citizens.
Our tag line “The Line of Law” guides that this......
Read More

Follow Us On Social Media

Subscribe to our News Letter

Sign Up for weekly newsletter to get the latest news, Updates and amazing offers delivered directly in to your inbox.

Categories

  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Columns
  • Bare Acts and Rules
  • Online Internship
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend – हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
      • Uttar Pradesh Acts
      • Uttar Pradesh Rules
      • Uttrakhand
      • DELHI
  • Webinar/Videos
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
  • Android App
  • IOS APP

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Fill the forms bellow to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In