Delhi High Court
Baby Anjum Thr. Her Natural ... vs The Chief Executive Officer, Bses ... on 10 April, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 10th April, 2012
+ WP(C) NO.5075/2008
BABY ANJUM THR. HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. T.N.Tripathi and Mr. Ranjeet
Singh, Advocates
Versus
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BSES
RAJDHANI POWER LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. I.S. Alag, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The present petition seeks compensation of ` 10 lacs for the injury
(amputation of hand) suffered by the petitioner No.1 (aged 4 years) allegedly
owing to electrocution attributable to the negligence of the respondent. The
petitioner no.2 is the father of the petitioner no.1. Notice of the petition was
issued. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent averring that the
writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for the relief claimed of
compensation. Reliance in this regard is placed on Chairman, Grid
Corporation of Orissa Ltd Vs. Smt Sukamani Das (1999) 7 SCC 298 and
the judgments of this Court in WP(C) 5016/2002 titled Smt. Ram Wati Vs.
BSES, Yamua Power Ltd and other connected petitions decided on 20 th
July, 2007 and in WP(C) No. 1108/2001 titled Shri Dharam Pal Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation decided on 14th January, 2008.
2. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on
(i) H.S.E.B. Vs. Ram Nath (2004) 5 SCC 793 where after
noticing Sukamani Das (supra) and in the absence of any
denial of the averments as to negligence, a compensation of
` 1 lac awarded by the High Court was held to be reasonable.
(ii) Shri Chand Vs. Chief Secretary 112(2004) DLT 37 holding
a writ petition for grant of compensation for dereliction of
public duty to be maintainable.
(iii) Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 3218 where
also in exercise of writ jurisdiction compensation was
awarded.
3. The petitioners have pleaded, that they are resident of House No. A-
37, Indra Park, Near Shani Bazar Road, Sakrawati Najafgarh, New Delhi;
that the respondent installed transformer on the electric pole just adjoining to
the parapet wall of the roof of the house of the petitioner; that inspite of
requests, the said transformer was not removed; that on 2 nd March, 2007 the
petitioner no.1 then aged 4 years, while playing on the roof came in contact
with the said transformer and suffered an electric shock which threw her off
from the roof of the house; that she was taken to the Deen Dayal Hospital on
5th March, 2007 and thereafter to Safdarjung Hospital on 12th March, 2007
where she was operated and her hand amputated to save her life; that FIR
No. 385/2007 under Section 338 of IPC of the incident was also lodged on
25th April, 2007. The petitioners, alongwith the writ petition have filed, (i)
the photographs of the house showing the electrical gadget installed on a
pole touching parapet wall of the roof of the house; (ii) the copy of the FIR
aforesaid; (iii) and the certificate issued by the Safdarjung Hospital of
amputation of the right arm above elbow of the petitioner no.1; and, (iv) the
copy of the legal notice served on the respondent prior to the institution of
the writ petition. The photographs and the FIR support the pleas of the
petitioners.
4. The judgments relied upon by the respondent are in the cases where
the facts were disputed. It was in that context held that disputed questions of
fact could not be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, in the present case, the respondent inspite
of opportunity has not controverted the facts at all. The only presumption /
inference is that the respondent is not able to.
5. Once the facts are not in dispute, the negligence of the respondent is
writ large and speaks for itself. Considering that the petitioner No.1 is a
girl child, has to lead her entire life with the handicap aforesaid which has
been evaluated by the Safdarjung Hospital also at 85%, I feel compensation
of ` 7.5 lacs to be appropriate.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondent is directed
to within one month hereof pay compensation of ` 7.5 lacs. Out of the said
amount, a sum of ` 25000/- be released immediately in favour of the
petitioner and the balance amount be forwarded in the form of a fixed
deposit in a nationalized bank in the name of the petitioner no.1 to the Delhi
Legal Services Authority (DLSA). The Secretary, DLSA is requested to,
after interacting with the petitioner and her parents, release the said amount
and / or make provision for release thereof after adjudging the requirements
of the petitioner no.1.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
th
APRIL 10 , 2012
'M'
