AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.R. Midha, J
The petitioners are the parents of Master Saurabh Sharma who died due to electrocution on 15th August, 2015. The petitioners are seeking
compensation for the death of their son, Saurabh.
On 15th August, 2015 at about 07:00 P.M., Saurabh Sharma aged about 10 years was running in the park at Badarpur to catch a kite which was
going towards submersible pump of Delhi Jal Board. The ground was slippery due to rain on the previous day due to which Saurabh slipped and his
body came in the contact with the control panel board of Delhi Jal Board which was having electrical current due to which Saurabh was electrocuted
and he fell down near the pump. Saurabh was detached from the control panel board by a neighbour with the help of wooden sticks and was taken to
Holy Family Hospital where he was declared as brought dead. Police registered FIR No.526 dated 16th August, 2015 under section 304A IPC at P.S.
Badarpur.
The Electrical Inspector inspected the site of the accident on 18th October, 2015 and submitted his report dated 20thOctober, 2015 which is on
record as Annexure D. As per the report of the Electrical Inspector, the supply of the electricity to the submersible pump and motor was not having
an earth leakage protective device and the three core flat cable from the electrical panel board to the submersible pump was not protected against any
mechanical injury by providing a metal casing or metallic covering. Relevant portion of the report of the Electrical Inspector is reproduced hereunder: -
Sub: Fatal accident of Master Saurabh Sharma occurred at DDA park near DDA colony Badar pur New Delhi on 15/08/2015.
Ref Case FIR no 526 dated 16/08/2015 u/s 304A IPC PS Badar pur New Delhi.
The information about the said accident was given to this office by Shri Dhananjay Kumar sub inspector police station Badarpur on
17/08/2015 with a request to inspect the place of accident.
As per directions of the Deputy Electrical Inspector, the site of accident was inspected by the under signed on 18/08/2015 in the presence of
shri Dhananjay Kumar Sub Inspector police station Badarpur, Shri Udia veer Singh Assistant Engineer and Naveen Guher Junior Engineer
Delhi Jal Board, Mohd Arif Assistant Manager BSES RPL and Shri Ram Kishan Supervisor SDMC New Delhi.
During the course of investigation it was reported that on 15/08/2015 Master Saurabh Sharma while trying to fetch a kite received an
electric shock from the electric panel board installed at DDA park near DDA colony Badar pur New Delhi which proved fatal. Further, it
was reported that there was water logging in the park after the heavy rain in the evening of 15/08/2015.
At the time of inspection a submersible pump of Delhi Jal board was found installed in the DDA park near DDA Colony BadarPur New
Delhi. The electric supply to the said pump had been controlled through an electric panel board installed nearby alongside boundary wall
of the said park. There were 2 numbers of three core flat cables laid from electric panel board to submersible pump motor which was just
lying on the ground and had not being protected against any mechanical injury. The insulation resistance of the electrical installation of the
said electric panel board was tested with 500V insulation testor (Meggar) and its insulation resistance was found about 10 Mega Ohms.
As it has been reported that there was a water logging in the park due to heavy rain on the day of accident so there is every possibility of
an accident to have happened, if any leakage of the electric current flow in electrical installation of the said electric panel board or
submersible pump along with supply leads under the wet condition by not providing earthing on the said electric penal board and
submersible pump and earth leakage protective device (ELCB) So as to cut off the supply instantly.
At the time of inspection the following provisions of central electricity Authority (measure relating to safety and electricity supply)
Regulation 2010 had not been found complied with by the Delhi Jal board:
The metallic body of the said electric panel board had not been connected by two separate and distinct connections with earth for
production against any leakage of electric current in contravention of the provisions of regulation 41 (xii) of the said regulations.
The supply of electricity to the said submersible pump and motor was not found controlled through an earth leakage protective device so
as to disconnect the electric supply instantly on the occurrence of the earth fault or leakage of current in contravention of the provisions of
the regulation 42 of the said regulations.
The 3 core flat cable laid from the said electric panel board to submersible pump motor had not been protected against any mechanical
injury by providing mechanically strong metal casing or metallic covering in contravention of the provisions of regulation 12(i) read with
37(i) of the said regulation.â€
(Emphasis supplied)
S.I. Rajendra Singh from P.S. Badarpur has produced the record of the criminal case according to which the charge sheet has been filed in FIR
No.526/2015, P.S. Badarpur against Naveen Guher, J.E. of Delhi Jal Boad and Banwari Singh, Pump Operator of Delhi Jal Board. The learned
Metropolitan Magistrate has framed the charge against the aforesaid two accused persons and the trial is pending and the next date of hearing is 09th
May, 2018. English translation of the relevant portion of the charge sheet is reproduced hereunder: -
During the investigation, SI Dhananjay Kumar sent Notice to the JE/BSES and called him to the Police Station and interrogated him who
disclosed during the interrogation that that Electronic Point Board fell under the Delhi Jal Board. The SI sent Notice to the AE of Delhi Jal
Board and called him who disclosed during the interrogation that the Area In-charge of tube-well No. 166 was Shri Naveen Guher JE. Even
the JE/NDMC was served Notice and was called who stated that the responsibility of that tube-well was that of the Delhi Jal Board and his
responsibility was only regarding the plants and trees. Banwari Lal, APD, Ward No.203 did the work of tube-well with Naveen Guher, the
AE/Delhi Jal Board. This incident had occurred at that tube-well on 15/08/2015 when both of these people were deputed there. In the
meanwhile, the SI got transferred and the case file was entrusted with me, the SI as per the order of the SHO and I was asked to conduct
further investigation. I, the SI duly arrested tube-well operator Banwari Singh S/o Khoob Singh, Address-Column No.11 in connection with
this Case when evidence sufficient for his arrest got collected during the investigation. His brief sketch was prepared and was attached with
the sentence slip. And JE Naveen Guher was asked to co-operate with the investigation by way of sending him Noitce u/s 41.1, Cr.PC in
connection with this case. When he joined the investigation, he was freed just on being bound and without any arrest. In order to obtain the
opinion, the FSL report and the PM Report are filed in the AIIMS. Till now the opinion has not been obtained from the AIIMS.
Supplementary Charge-sheet shall be produced in the Court once the opinion is received. Evidence sufficient for preparing charge-sheet
against Banwari Lal s/o Khoob Singh, R/o. Column No.11 and JE Naveen Guher S/o. Kishan Pal, R/o. Coloumn No.11A have been collected
during the investigation so far and have been recorded on the pages of the file. Therefore, charge-sheet is being prepared in connection
with this case and is being sent. The witnesses may be summoned and the accused may be sent Notice and the hearings of the case may be
started. Accused Banwari Lal has been granted bail by the Police in this case and accused Naveen Guher has not been arrested.â€
DDA has filed counter affidavit according to which DDA handed over the entire area in question to South Delhi Municipal Corporation. According
to DDA, Delhi Jal Board was responsible for supply of water to the residents of the DDA flats and maintenance of electric submersible pump
installed by it.
South Delhi Municipal Corporation impleaded as respondent No.4 on 11 th December, 2017 denies any kind of liability in respect of the accident in
question.
BSES was impleaded as respondent No.5 on 08th January, 2018. According to BSES, the submersible pump as well as service cable from which
the electricity leaked belongs to Delhi Jal Board and Delhi Jal Board alone is responsible for the accident in question. BSES relies upon the report of
the Electrical Inspector.
Delhi Jal Board has filed the counter affidavit. Delhi Jal Board admits that the submersible pump belongs to Delhi Jal Board. However, the liability
to pay the compensation is disputed by Delhi Jal Board. According to Delhi Jal Board, the electrical supply to the main switch of submersible pump
was disconnected on 14th August, 2015 on a complaint received from the residents. According to Delhi Jal Board, the staff of BSES appear to have
done some work on 16th August, 2015 and therefore, BSES was responsible. Delhi Jal Board relies on investigation report dated 29th February, 2016.
Without prejudice, it is submitted that the Delhi Jal Board be granted the recovery rights to recover the compensation amount from BSES. The
relevant portion of the counter affidavit of Delhi Jal Board is reproduced hereunder: -
“1. It is stated for record that a complaint was received on 14.08.2015 by Junior Engineer (E&M) of the answering respondent, from the
residents surrounding the DDA park, DDA Flats, Badarpur that a tube well was not working. Accordingly, the JE (E&M) directed Shri
Banwari Singh, Assistant Pump Driver (APD)/Electrician to attend to the said complaint. After inspection, the APD found that submersible
pump was faulty and it required replacement. This was accordingly informed to the residents and it was further informed that the said
submersible pump will be replaced on 17.08.2015. The said APD also informed the concerned Junior Engineer (E&M) about the said
situation, on which the JE (E&M) immediately directed him to disconnect the electric supply from the main switch, which.
On 15.08.2015 an unfortunate incident happened in which the son of the Petitioner was electrocuted near the Tube Well in the aforesaid
DDA park, DDA Flats, Badarpur. On receiving the information, the JE(E&M) and the AE (E&M) of the answering respondent, rushed to
the site but were unable to enter the premises where the tube well was situated due to gathering of an angry mob.
On 17.08.2015 the site was inspected by the Vigilance Team of the Answering Respondent along with the concerned officials of the
Division; wherein it was observed by the Vigilance Team that the operating panel of the tube-well was properly earthed. All the parts of the
panel such as Main Switch, Starter and Protector were found properly enclosed inside the MS panel enclosure. The cables inside the DJB
panel were found properly fitted. During investigation/inspection the Vigilance Team also found some pieces of PVC wire/ Strips of BSES
cable near the panel and at BSES electric pole, about which the residents informed the Vigilance Team that some repair/renovation work on
BSES Cable of the panel was carried out by BSES Staff on 16.08.2015 i.e. the next date after the date of incident. It is pertinent to mention
that such act of repair/renovation conducted by BSES appears to have erased the evidence from the site which would have proved that the
bare unattended electric wires belonged to BSES.
In view of the aforestated circumstances. it is denied that the duty on the part of the officials of the Answering Respondent by keeping the
panel board of submersible pump naked and live. It is submitted that earthing of the wires of the submersible pump were provided through
GI earth wires from the answering respondents electric panel board to the Tube Well/ Borewell, which was about 450 ft. deep approx. It is
further submitted that a vigilance team comprising of officials from answering respondent’s departments inspected DJB panel and found
that the operating panel of the tube-well was properly earthed. All the parts of the panel such as Main Switch, Starter and Protector were
found properly enclosed inside the MS panel enclosure. The cables inside the DJB panel were found properly fitted. Be that as it may the
answering respondent’s Maintenance Team had already disconnected the main switch on 14.08.2015. Therefore, it is respectfully
submitted that there was no negligence on the part of answering respondent in the unfortunate incident which happened on 15.08.2015.â€
Learned senior counsel for BSES disputes any liability of BSES on the ground that BSES has not done any act so as to warrant any liability of
BSES.
This Court is of the view that the primary liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners is of Delhi Jal Board and Delhi Jal Board is at liberty
to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against any other person/authority against whom they consider liable.
The deceased Saurabh Sharma was aged 10 years at the time of the accident. The petitioner No.1, father of the deceased, was running a grocery
shop at Badarpur in a rented premises from where he was evicted in June, 2016 and petitioner No.1 is now working with a carpenter earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. Petitioner No.2, mother of the deceased, is working as a maid servant and she claims to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
The petitioners’ claim to be staying in a rented accommodation and have three minor children who are studying in a school in Badarpur.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100 the Supreme Court awarded compensation of
Rs.7,50,000/- to the victims below 20 years and Rs.10 lakh to victims above 20 years of age by applying the multiplier method. The relevant portion of
the Supreme Court judgment is as under:
“38. … It can be by way of making monetary amounts for the wrong done or by way of exemplary damages, exclusive of any amount
recoverable in a civil action based on tortuous liability. But in such a case it is improper to assume admittedly without any basis, that every
person who visits a cinema theatre and purchases a balcony ticket should be of a high income group person. In the year 1997, Rs. 15,000
per month was rather a high income. The movie was a new movie with patriotic undertones. It is known that zealous movie goers, even from
low income groups, would not mind purchasing a balcony ticket to enjoy the film on the first day itself. To make a sweeping assumption that
every person who purchased a balcony class ticket in 1997 should have had a monthly income of Rs. 15,000 and on that basis apply high
multiplier of 15 to determine the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 18 lakhs in the case of persons above the age of 20 years and Rs. 15
lakhs for persons below that age, as a public law remedy, may not be proper. While awarding compensation to a large group of persons, by
way of public law remedy, it will be unsafe to use a high income as the determinative factor. The reliance upon Neelabati Behera (AIR 1993
SC 1960) in this behalf is of no assistance as that case related to a single individual and there was specific evidence available in regard to
the income. Therefore, the proper course would be to award a uniform amount keeping in view the principles relating to award of
compensation in public law remedy cases reserving liberty to the legal heirs of deceased victims to claim additional amount wherever they
were not satisfied with the amount awarded. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded in public law
remedy cases, and the need to provide a deterrent, we are of the view that award of Rs. 10 lakhs in the case of persons aged above 20
years and Rs. 7.5 lakhs in regard to those who were 20 years or below as on the date of the incident, would be appropriate. We do not
propose to disturb the award of Rs. 1 lakh each in the case of injured. The amount awarded as compensation will carry interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of writ petition as ordered by the High Court, reserve liberty to the victims or the LRs. of the victims as the
case may be to seek higher remedy wherever they are not satisfied with the compensation. Any increase shall be borne by the Licensee
(theatre owner) exclusively.â€
In UPSRTC v. R.K. Sachdeva, MAC. APP. 182/2008 decided on 2r3d December, 2016, this Court, applying Uphaar Tragedy case, enhanced the
compensation in respect of a 18 year old child from Rs.3,42,000/- to Rs.10 lakh considering that Uphaar Tragedy took place in the year 1997 whereas
the accident in question took place on 04th May, 2003.
Chiranji Lal v. DDA, W.P.(C) 12087/2015 decided on 13th July, 2017 relates to the death of a minor child aged 11 years due to the falling of an
iron gate of a DDA park on him. Vide order dated 21st July, 2016, this Court constituted a Committee presided by Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG to
consider formulating a policy guidelines for payment of a fixed ex-gratia compensation in such cases. The Committee appointed by this Court
recommended the payment of compensation of Rs.10 lakh in death cases and Rs.5 lakh in case of permanent disability in pursuant to which DDA
approved the payment of ex-gratia compensation of Rs.10 lakh to the petitioners on no fault liability and the said amount has been disbursed to the
parents of the deceased.
Sohan Lal v. Government of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C) 2584/2008 decided on 23rd November, 2017 relates to the death of a 6 year old child and
injury to a 4 year old child playing in the street by electrocution. This Court awarded compensation of Rs.10 lakh in respect of the death of a 6 year
old child and Rs.1,50,000/- to the injured child.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is allowed and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. 30th November, 2015 up to the realization is awarded to the petitioners against the respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the amount awarded by this Court with the Registrar General of this Court within three weeks from today.
After depositing the compensation amount, Delhi Jal Board would be at liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against BSES Yamuna Power
Ltd, South Delhi Municipal Corporation and/or any agency, who they consider responsible, in accordance with law.
List for disbursement of the compensation amount on 22nd March, 2018 at 02:30 P.M.
The petitioners shall remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing along with the passbooks of their savings bank accounts and other
documents in terms of the para-5 of the order dated 08th January, 2018.
This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by the learned counsels for the parties in this matter.
Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the parties under signature of Court Master.