Latest News
Back
Document:
BSES-RPL liable for damages not on basis of proof but on the principle of absolute liability: Delhi High Court
A writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court against the BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd (BSES-RPL) claiming compensation for a death caused due to electrocution arising out of the company’s negligence.
The petitioner, Munni Devi, claimed Rs.30,00,000 as compensation for the death of her son, Mintu Kumar. Claiming that his death occurred due to him being electrocuted by an exposed wire when he was passing through a building where the BSES-RPL were the electricity suppliers, the petitioner submitted that the death arose due to sheer negligence on the part of the respondent. To this, the respondents submitted that the petition was barred by a 12-year delay and submitted that it must be dismissed. Further, it was contended that the petition was merely a bundle of disputed facts and needed extensive evidence.
It was noted by the court that the petitioner had made previous attempts to receive compensation from the company by sending them legal notices, however, due to no response, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in the Delhi High Court. Addressing the question of the 12-year delay, the HC recorded that the petitioner had made regular efforts to enquire about their son’s case, however, it was only after a decade when an order was passed by the Saket Courts to the Delhi Police that the death report of the deceased was produced wherein it was recorded that the death was caused due to electrocution. Hence, it was noted that such a delay which is not a result of the petitioner’s own fault cannot deprive them of their rights.
Further, the question of the requirement of ‘extensive evidence’ was addressed where the court citing a similar case, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar & Anr. (A.I.R. 2002 SC 551), stated that the proof of negligence is no necessary in cases where the principle of absolute liability arises. Applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the court explained that where it is probable that an act was caused due to the negligence of a party, proof of evidence of any particular act is not necessary.
Hence, the court in the present case observed in the present case BSES-RPL was evidently liable for negligence and the circumstances and report of the Delhi Police suggest that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in the present case. A compensation of Rs.10,00,000 was awarded to the petitioner, payable by the respondents within a period of 3 months from the order.
Document:
