Delhi District Court
Smt Shanti vs Smt Virmati And Anr on 8 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-09
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-006875-2023
CS DJ No. 697/2023
In the matter of :-
Shanti
W/o Sh. Shiv Kumar,
R/o Barethi, Atrauly,
Hardoi, Atrauly,
UP - 241204.
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Virmati
W/o Sh. Ved Prakash,
R/o B-70, Gali no. 11,
Hanuman Enclave, Nangloi West,
Delhi-110041.
2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
BSES Bhawan, Near Kalkaji Metro Station,
Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
..... Defendants
Date of institution : 24.08.2023
Reserved for Judgment : 26.11.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 08.12.2025
SUIT FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for grant of compensation to the legal heir of the deceased under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. Succinctly put, the case of plaintiff, as per plaint, is that Mr. Nand Kishore CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 1/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:16:37 +0530 (deceased), aged 35 years was her son. He was tenant under the defendant no. 1 (for short 'D-1'), who was the owner of premises no. B-70, Gali No. 11, Hanuman Enclave, Nangloi, Delhi. As per the direction of D-1, the deceased was cleaning the water tank on the roof of the premises. At the time of cleaning the water tank, the deceased received an electric shock on 16.04.2023 at about 11:00 AM. He was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, where he was declared as brought dead. It was a case of fatal death due to electrocution. An FIR no. 311/2023 under Section 304A IPC was registered at PS Nangloi. His postmortem was also conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. It has been claimed that D-1 had knowledge that electric wires were naked, but she did not disclose the said fact to the deceased. Further, the defendant no. 2 (for short 'D-2') is a statutory and public body, which is duty bound to inspect the area. Accordingly, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff.
2. It has been further averred that the mother of deceased (plaintiff) used to visit his house for meeting. The wife of deceased had already died. The plaintiff is a widow, who has no source of income except the income of deceased. The deceased used to send money from time to time for her livelihood. He used to look after the plaintiff financially and physically. Other two children of the plaintiff were living separately from her at their respective residential places. Further, the deceased used to work as a labour and earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, the plaintiff has claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 2/ 31Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:16:45 +0530
3. In her written statement, D-1 has raised preliminary objection that she is not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiff as there was no wrongful act, neglect or default on her part. She did not know the deceased and had no contact with him ever. He was not her tenant at any point of time. On merits, D-1 has denied that the address of deceased was B-70, Gali No. 11, Hanuman Enclave, Nangloi. She has submitted that as per FIR, the incident address reported on the PCR call was behind Rao Vihar Gali No. 5, House No. 1141, Nangloi. Further, D-1 did not reside at the said premises no. B-70. Since the year 2009, she had been residing with her daughter and her family at B-151, KH No. 61/22, Laxmi Park, Nangloi. Thus, D-1 has prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
4. In its written statement, D-2 has raised preliminary objection that the premises where the incident had happened, is unauthorizedly constructed under the path of extra high voltage (EHV) of electricity line which is carrying 66,000 volts. Any construction, whatsoever in any nature, is not permissible under the path of EHV. The clearance of property/building in question is beyond the permissible limits as prescribed by the provisions of the Central Electricity Authority/Supply Code. Hence, there was no negligence on the part of D-2, as the EHV was setup in the year 1970, much before the construction of the premises in question. The incident had happened due to the sole negligence of the owner of premises who had constructed the building under the path of EHV.
5. It has been further submitted that HT [High Tension] lines carrying 66,000 volt was passing over the premises. The building was constructed in violation of Regulations 58, 60 and 61 of the Central CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 3/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:16:51 +0530 Electricity Authority (Measures relating to safety and electricity supply), Regulations 2010 (CEA Regulations). Therefore, vertical and horizontal clearance was required for the purpose of safety measurements as per abovesaid Regulations. As per CEA Regulations, 2010, there is a right of way for HT lines under various voltage levels. No construction was allowed under the HT lines as per the right of way specified in the said CEA Regulations.
6. It has been further submitted on behalf of D-2 that as per Regulation 61 of CEA Regulations, an overhead line shall not cross over an existing building as far as possible and no building shall be constructed under an existing overhead line. Where an overhead line of voltage exceeding 650V passes above or adjacent to any building or part of the building, it shall have a vertical clearance above the highest part of the building immediately under such line, of not less than:
For lines of Voltages exceeding 3.7 meters 650V upto and including 33,000V For lines of Voltages exceeding 3.7 meters plus 0.30 meter for 33 KV every additional 33,000V or part thereof
7. Further, the horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor and any part of such building shall on the basis of maximum deflection due to wind pressure be not less than:
For lines of Voltages exceeding 1.2 meters 650V upto and including 11,000V For lines of Voltages 11,000V and 2.0 meters upto and including 33,000V For lines of Voltages exceeding 2.0 meters plus 0.30 meter for 33,000 V every additional 33,000V or part thereof CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 4/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:16:56 +0530
8. Further, the plaintiff has not placed on record any document showing her entitlement for the recovery of damages. The present plaint is bad on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary party i.e. Insurance Company, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company. On merits, it has been submitted on behalf of D-2 that its officials had carried out a joint inspection and duly informed the Office of Electrical Inspector vide letter dated 17.04.2023 regarding the unfortunate incident. Further, D-2 regularly intimates the residents of the locality about safety measures to be taken in respect of overhead extra high voltage wire. The notices regarding the abovesaid guidelines of CEA Regulations are also indicated on the backside of the electricity bills, which are regularly being sent to the respective consumers, including D-1. Such unforeseen circumstance was not in the hands of D-2 and the same had happened due to the unauthorized construction under EHV lines. It is worth noting that with regard to column no. 9 of the plaint in which brief particulars of accident have been mentioned i.e. the deceased received electric shock while he was cleaning the water tank, D-2 has submitted that the same is matter of record. Thus, D-2 has also prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 24.09.2024:-
1. Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD-2
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of compensation, as prayed for? OPP CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 5/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:17:01 +0530
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what amount, at what rate and for which period? OPP
4. Relief.
10. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined two witnesses. PW-1 is the plaintiff herself. In her evidence affidavit Ex.PW-1/A, PW-1 has submitted on the similar lines as stated in the plaint. She has relied upon the following documents:-
(1) Death Certificate of Sh. Nand Kishore, Ex.PW1/1. (2) Copy of FIR No. 311/2023 PS Nangloi, Mark-A. (3) Copy of Postmortem Report, Mark-B. (4) Aadhar Card of deceased, Ex.PW-1/2. (5) Aadhar Card of plaintiff, Mark-C. PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defendants.
11. PW-2 is Sh. Bablu, brother of the deceased/son of the plaintiff. In his evidence affidavit Ex.PW-2/A, he has stated that he had taken the photograph and made videos from his mobile at the time of vacating of the suit premises on 01.11.2023. He tendered the pen-drive containing the said photograph and videos, as Ex.PW-2/1 and certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-2/2. He was cross- examined on behalf of the defendants.
12. On 22.07.2025, a statement was made on behalf of the defendants that they did not dispute the contents of FIR no. 311/2023 PS Nangloi, Ex.P-1 and Postmortem Report no. 370/2023, Ex.P-2. Thereafter, on that day, the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 6/ 31
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08
16:17:06
+0530
13. During the proceedings dated 19.08.2025, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 submitted that the defendant no. 1 did not wish to lead any evidence. Thereafter, the defence evidence of defendant no. 1 was closed.
14. In its defence, defendant no. 2 examined Sh. Sanwar Mal, Assistant Manager, as D2W1. In his evidence affidavit Ex.D2W1/A, he has submitted on the similar lines as stated in the written statement of D-2. He has relied upon the following documents:-
(1) Copy of letter dated 17.04.2023 alongwith Inspection Report, Ex.D2W1/A. (2) Letter dated, 13.04.2023 issued by D-2 to D-1, Ex.D2W1/B. (3) Public Notice dated 09.09.2016 alongwith back portion of the bill indicating the safety alert, Ex.D2W1/C. (4) Photographs of the premises alongwith Electricity Bill [of the impugned premises], Mark-A. (5) Identity card of the witness, Ex.D2W1/E. D2W1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. However, he was not cross-examined on behalf of D-1. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.09.2025, defence evidence of D-2 was closed.
15. I have heard respective Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff and for defendants and carefully perused the material available on record. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the deceased was the tenant of D-1. It was D-1 who had asked the deceased to clean the water tank situated on the roof of the tenanted premises. When the deceased was cleaning the water tank, he came into contact with high tension wire which was crossing over the building. Thus, both the defendants are CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 7/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:17:12 +0530 liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff for the death of deceased as D-1 had directed the deceased to clean the water tank while knowing that high tension wire are crossing over the building and D-2 had not maintained a safe vertical distance of high tension wire from the building. Accordingly, the present suit shall be decreed.
16. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 has argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the deceased was tenant of D-1. He has led the Court through the testimonies of plaintiff's witnesses to support his argument. He has also got the videos, stored in the pen-drive Ex.PW-2/1, played in the Court.
17. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 has argued that D-2 was not negligent in the present circumstances. D-2, from time to time, has issued public notices for clearance of buildings, structures, balconies etc. from electricity mains or electric installations of the distribution licensee (i.e. D-2). Further, a notice dated 13.04.2023 was also issued to D-1 for clearance of unauthorized structure constructed in contravention of the Regulations 60 and 61 of CEA Regulations, 2010. Despite such public notices and specific notice to D-1, she had not cleared the unauthorized construction carried out by her without maintaining prescribed distance from high tension wire. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the path of extra high voltage wires was setup in the year 1970 much before the construction of the premises in question. Accordingly, it was D-1 who shall be held liable for payment of compensation, if any, awarded by the Court. Thus, D-2 can not be held liable for payment of compensation on account of death of the deceased.
CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 8/ 31Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:17:18 +0530
18. The issue-wise findings are as follows:-
Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of compensation, as prayed for? OPP Issue No. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what amount, at what rate and for which period? OPP The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. First of all, the Court proceeds to examine the testimonies of plaintiff's witnesses. PW-1, during her cross-examination conducted on behalf of D-1, has deposed that she did not know about the date and year from when her son started residing at the premises owned by D-1. Her son [deceased] used to pay Rs.6,000/- monthly rent. She denied the suggestion that she had not placed any receipt with her plaint because the deceased was never a tenant of D-1. She was residing in Barethi, Atrauli, UP when the incident had occurred. She had never visited the alleged premises where the incident had happened. As per her knowledge, her son used to pay rent to D-1 in cash. She could not provide any document such as utility bills, Voter ID card, Aadhar Card showing the deceased's address as that of alleged premises. She had never met D-1. She got to know about the incident through one Bablu, brother of deceased. She did not have any knowledge whether the police verification had been done for establishing tenancy of the deceased at the alleged premises. She denied the suggestion that neither her son was tenant of D-1 nor D-1 asked him to clean the water tank. Her son was residing at the alleged premises for the last 7-8 years. She used to visit Delhi before this incident. At the time of incident, Bablu [PW-2] was in Barethi, Atrauli, UP.CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 9/ 31
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:17:24 +0530
19. During her cross-examination conducted on behalf of D-2, PW-1 has admitted the suggestion put to her that she had never visited the alleged premises. She did not know that the suit premises was built under EHV (Electrical High Tension Wire). She did not know anything about the notice dated 13.04.2023 issued by BSES to D-1.
20. From the testimony of PW-1, it is made out that the plaintiff could not place on record any oral or documentary evidence to conclusively substantiate her claim of tenancy of the deceased over the premises on the roof of which, the impugned incident had occurred. She had never visited the said premises. Moreover, admittedly, she was present in UP when the incident had occurred. She has not disclosed as to who had told her about the direction allegedly given by D-1 to the deceased to clean the water tank. The plaintiff did not examine any witness to substantiate her claim of the alleged direction given by D-1 to the deceased.
21. Coming to the testimony of PW-2, during his cross-examination conducted on behalf of D-2, he deposed that he had visited the premises where the accident had occurred. He was well aware that the high tension wires of electricity were passing over the premises. In his cross- examination conducted on behalf of D-1, he admitted the suggestion that he was not staying in the abovesaid building [where the incident had occurred]. He was never a tenant in the said building. He further deposed that at the time of incident, he was in his village. In respect of video no. VID-20240103-WA0003 and image no. IMG-20240103- WA0000, he submitted that those were not clicked and prepared by him. The said video was sent to him by one of his relatives. He admitted that the lid of water tank as shown in the image CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 10/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:17:29 +0530 IMG-20240103-WA0000 is covered i.e. not opened. Further, there was distance of approximate 20 feet between the building having white colored water tank [from where it is shown that the belongings of deceased were removed later on] and the building having green colored water tank [where the impugned incident was stated to have occurred]. They used to live in the building having white colored water tank. He admitted that the said building [having white colored water tank] did not have any high tension electricity wire on its roof. He admitted that his deceased brother used to live in the tenanted premises and he had never lived there permanently. He voluntarily stated that he used to go there intermittently. His deceased brother was occupying the second floor of the tenanted premises. The video VID-20240103-WA0004 had been prepared by his brother-in-law (Jija). When the suit premises were vacated on 01.11.2023, there were presence of PW-2, his Jija and friends of his deceased brother.
22. The Court is in agreement with argument advanced by Ld. Counsels for defendants that the electronic evidence led by PW-2 has not been tendered in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as the said photo and videos kept in pen-drive had been clicked by a person other than PW-2. Neither the said phone/instrument through which the photo and videos had been clicked has been produced before the Court as primary evidence nor the Certificate of the person from whose primary device the said photo and videos had been transferred to the pen-drive Ex.PW-2/1, has been tendered. But, it is pertinent to note that during his cross-examination, it has not been put to PW-2 that the said image and videos in pen-drive Ex.PW-2/1 are manipulated and do not depict the factual situation recorded in the same.
CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 11/ 31
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08
16:17:34
+0530
23. If the Court considers the image and videos stored in the pen- drive Ex. PW-2/1. The image IMG-20240103-WA0000 shows a green color water tank. A burnt body is lying beside the water tank and two wires are crossing just over the roof whereupon the water tank is placed. This depiction is in consonance with the stand of D-2 put to PW-2 that high tension wires of electricity are passing over the premises. It is worth noting here itself that as per the defence of D-2, for lines of voltage exceeding 33KV, there shall be vertical distance of 3.7 meters + 0.30 meter for every additional 33,000V or part thereof, above the highest part of the building. As per claim of D-2, the extra high voltage wire above the impugned building was carrying 66,000V. Thus, there should have been a distance of 4 meters between the EHV and the highest part of the impugned building. The abovesaid image clearly depicts the violation of Regulation 61 of CEA Regulations, 2010, as the said EHV is crossing just over the impugned building, what about maintaining a prescribed distance of 4 meters (13.12 feet).
24. The videos VID-20240103-WA0001, VID-20240103-WA0002 and VID-20240103-WA0004 depict removal of belongings by some unidentified persons from the room. However, PW-2 has stated that there is a distance of approximately 20 feet between the building having white color water tank (from where the persons are removing the belongings) and the building having green colored water tank. This aspect has been deliberated upon later while analyzing other evidence available on record.
25. The video VID-20240103-WA0003 depicts the removal of body of the deceased from the place of incident by electricity and police officials. This video also shows three high tension wires crossing over the building.
CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 12/ 31
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08
16:17:43
+0530
26. From the above image IMG-20240103-WA0000 and video VID-20240103-WA0003, it stands proved that the incident had occurred on the roof of building having green colored water tank. It is correct that PW-2 has faltered in his deposition to prove that the deceased was tenant in the said building.
27. At this stage, FIR No. 311/23 Ex.P-1 and Postmortem Report no. 370/23 Ex.P-2 are also relevant. D-1 has claimed in her written statement that as per FIR, the incident address reported on the PCR call was behind Rao Vihar Gali No. 5, House No. 1141, Nangloi. But, the FIR No. 311/23, under Section 304A IPC, PS Nangloi, Ex.P-1 reflects that place of occurrence was B-70, Gali No. 1, Hanuman Enclave, Nangloi, Delhi and date and time of incident as 16.04.2023 at 11:00 AM. The incident description has been mentioned as 'ek admi ko wire se current laga hai jo ki jal gye hai abhi saas chal rhi hai need medical help urgent'. It has been further mentioned that when the police officials reached at the spot, they found that one person had got electrocuted by high tension wire. Thereafter, the police official/ASI Maheswar called the electricity department and got high tension wire disconnected. The deceased had died at the spot and sent to SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
28. The place of occurrence shown in the FIR Ex.P-1 matches with the address of defendant no. 1 mentioned in the memo of parties. The said fact mentioned in the FIR about place of occurrence has not been disputed by D-1 either during plaintiff's evidence or by leading her defence evidence. The same has also not been disputed by D-2 too.
29. The postmortem report of deceased Ex.P-2 contains the cause of death as 'shock as a result of antemortem burns'. Brief history has been CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 13/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:17:48 +0530 mentioned as 'alleged history of burns due to high power electric wire at on 16.04.2023 at about 11:00 AM and brought to SGM Hospital on 16.04.2023 at 05:10 PM where declared brought dead'. The external examination shows 'superficial to deep burns present over the face, neck, front of chest and abdomen, both upper limbs, front and back of both thighs, left foot. Base of burnt surface area red and inflamed.
Singeing of scalp of axillary hairs'. This postmortem report leads to draw an inference about the immediate fatal impact upon the person getting in contact with high tension wire.
30. Before arriving at any finding on the above aspects, the Court proceeds to analyze the defence evidence led by D-2. During his cross- examination conducted on behalf of plaintiff, D2W1 has deposed that on 17.04.2023, joint inspection with safety team was carried out at the location of/property bearing no. B-70, Khasra no. 53/15/2, Hanuman Enclave, Shiv Park, Nangloi regarding electrocution of the deceased. The owner of the above mentioned incident premises was Ms. Veermati w/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash. He sent a notice to the owner of premises on 13.04.2023 regarding unauthorized construction. There should be vertical distance of minimum 4 meters between wireline (66KV line) and any structure. The distance between the wireline and the structure of the incident premises was less than 4 meters. He further deposed that he could not say whether any inspection of the incident premises had been carried out prior to 13.04.2023. It is worth noting that D2W1 was not cross-examined on behalf of D-1.
31. The inspection report Ex.D2W1/A mentions at serial no. 11 of Annexure XIII i.e. Form for reporting electrical accident that 'victim (deceased) was residing on the said premises [i.e. House no. B-70, CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 14/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:17:55 +0530 Khasra no. 53/15/2, Hanuman Enclave, Shiv Park, Nangloi, New Delhi] from last six months as tenant confirmed by owner Smt. Veermati. It is learnt from site that victim was on his roof and came in contact with 66KV overhead electrical line'. At serial no. 12, it has been mentioned that 'victim was found dead by police and body of victim was sent for postmortem'. At serial no. 21, it has been stated that 'the incident was reported by 11KV O & M Complaint Center, Adhyapak Nagar, Div. Nangloi to System Operation and then, System Operation informed us about the accident. After this, our breakdown team visited the site and confirmed that the victim was dead under the 66KV, Najafgarh to Nangloi ckt. Supply was put of by system operation and breakdown team helped police in removing the dead body from the site'. Another page annexed with the report containing accident details mentions that 'the deceased was residing at the site from last six months as tenant confirmed by owner and other neighbors. Notice was also served to the house owner. Awareness campaign was also done by EHV TRL Team'.
32. The abovesaid inspection report tendered by D2W1 has not been controverted on behalf of D-1 at all, as D-1 has preferred not to cross- examine the witness. This report has specifically contained the aspect that the deceased was tenant of D-1 for six months and this fact had also been confirmed by the neighbors to the team who had conducted the inspection. It is worth noting that D-1 has refrained herself from appearing in the witness box to testify about her claim that the deceased was not her tenant and he was merely a stranger to her. The above report further corroborates the image IMG-20240103-WA0000 and video VID-20240103-WA0003, tendered by PW-2 showing the spot of incident and taking away the body of deceased from the spot by police and electricity officials.
CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 15/ 31Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:18:02 +0530
33. D2W1 has tendered a letter dated 13.04.2023 issued by D-2 to D-1, Ex.D2W1/B. Through the said letter, D-2 has informed about 'prescribed minimum vertical and horizontal clearance standard where electricity lines are passing above or adjacent to a building/structure/balcony/roof/projection etc.'. It has been further mentioned in the letter that 'BSES (RPL) carried an inspection on ____ at your premises___ wherein, it was found that you have raised/extended the buildings etc. during or after the construction of authorizedly laid electrical mains/associated electrical installations in contravention of the aforesaid regulations and provisions of law. The unauthorized construction/projection will not only be a potential danger to the life and property of inmates of the building but will also be permanent threat and danger to the life of passer by human beings and animals and also a threat to the property located nearby'. D-1 has been further called upon to remove the unauthorized extension/construction voluntarily, immediately or latest within 15 days from the receipt of this notice, failing which, BSES (RPL) would be constrained to get unauthorized structure removed/demolished through concerned Municipal Authority or Local Body with aid of the police. It has been further mentioned that compliance/reply should reach the office of D-2 within 20 days from the receipt of the notice.
34. Surprisingly, the letter Ex.D2W1/B has been claimed to have been issued on 13.04.2023 i.e. just three days prior to the date of impugned incident. The letter is silent as to when the inspection of the premises of D-1 had been carried out, which led to issuance of the letter. Furthermore, no record has been produced by D-2 regarding service of the said letter to D-1. In its inspection report dated 17.04.2023, there is reference of service of notice to the house owner. It CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 16/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:18:09 +0530 has not been clarified by D-2 as to which notice had been served to the house owner by the inspection team. It appears that D-2 has issued the letter Ex.D2W1/B just to show about its diligence in carrying out its activity in the area and to shift responsibility onto D-1 regarding the impugned incident occurred on 16.04.2023. Even otherwise, through the said letter only, D-2 has informed D-1 about the prescribed minimum vertical and horizontal clearance standard and called upon her to remove the unauthorized construction within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. D-2 is silent whether any such notice had earlier been issued to D-1 calling upon her to remove unauthorized construction which was not maintaining prescribed vertical and horizontal distance from the high tension wires crossing over her premises. When D-2 is engaged in such activity having potential danger to the life of inhabitants of the building as well as of the neighbors, it was its duty to inform the owner of building about the prescribed vertical and horizontal distance. If the building owner does not adhere to such notice having been given to him/her, D-2 must have informed the concerned Municipal Body requesting to initiate action against such unauthorized construction. But, D-2 has not brought on record any such steps taken by it. In these circumstances, D-2 can not be allowed to get benefit of Regulations 60 and 61 of CEA Regulations, 2010.
35. In this regard, D2W1 has placed a public notice dated 09.09.2016, Ex.D2W1/C on record, whereby general public had been informed and advised to remove unauthorized structures, which were in violation of the minimum clearances required from the electricity mains/installations, failing which, action might be initiated for removal of such illegal structures through Municipal Authorities/Local Bodies etc. First of all, the said public notice had been issued more than six CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 17/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:18:15 +0530 years prior to the impugned incident. It is reiterated that D-2 is silent as to what steps were initiated by it against the alleged unauthorized construction carried out by D-1. It is further silent as to when D-2 came into knowledge of the said unauthorized construction.
36. D2W1 has also placed some photographs, Mark-A on record. The said photographs are stated to be of the impugned building. It is very surprising to note that the photographs depict not only high tension wire crossing over the building without maintaining prescribed vertical distance, but also very thick wire, probably high tension wire, touching the building without maintaining any horizontal distance. Rather the photographs depict scary state of affairs. Such state of things maintained by D-2 is rather inviting such fatal accidents to happen with anybody who comes into contact with these wires. It is not the case of D-2 that safety measures had been taken by it to avoid any such incident most likely to occur by getting contacted with the wires depicted in the photographs Mark-A.
37. At this stage, the Court is conscious of the applicability of the principle of Strict Liability in the present facts and circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath, (2004) 5 SCC 793, has held that:
6. The appellants are carrying on a business which is inherently dangerous. If a person were to come into contact with a high-
tension wire, he is bound to receive serious injury and/or die. As they are carrying on a business which is inherently dangerous, the appellants would have to ensure that no injury results from their activities. If they find that unauthorised constructions have been put up close to their wires it is their duty to ensure that that construction is got demolished by moving the appropriate authorities and if necessary, by moving a court of law. Otherwise, they would take the consequences of their inaction. If there are complaints that these wires are drooping and almost touching houses, they have to ensure that the required distance is kept CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 18/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:18:21 +0530 between the houses and the wires, even though the houses be unauthorised. In this case we do not find any disputed question of fact.
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162, has held that:
7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 19/ 31
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:18:28 +0530
9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English common law when it was propounded in the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher. Blackburn, J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision : (All ER p. 7E-F) "[T]he true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."
10. There are seven exceptions formulated by means of case-law to the doctrine of strict liability. It is unnecessary to enumerate those exceptions barring one which is this: "Act of stranger i.e. if the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, the rule does not apply." (Vide p. 535, Winfield on Tort, 15th Edn.)
11. The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many subsequent decisions in England. A recent decision in recognition of the said doctrine is rendered by the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc. The said principle gained approval in India, and decisions of the High Courts are a legion to that effect. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India and a Division Bench in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai had followed with approval the principle in Rylands v. Fletcher. By referring to the above two decisions a two-Judge Bench of this Court has reiterated the same principle in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
12. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, this Court has gone even beyond the rule of strict liability by holding that : (SCC p. 421, para 31) Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
13. In the present case, the Board made an endeavour to rely on the exception to the rule of strict liability ( Rylands v. Fletcher) being "an act of stranger". The said exception is not available to the Board as the act attributed to the third respondent should reasonably have been anticipated or at any rate its consequences CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 20/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:18:35 +0530 should have been prevented by the appellant-Board. In Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. London Guarantee and Accident Co. Ltd., the Privy Council repelled the contention of the defendant based on the aforecited exception. In that case a hotel belonging to the plaintiffs was destroyed in a fire caused by the escape and ignition of natural gas. The gas had percolated into the hotel basement from a fractured welded joint in an intermediate pressure main situated below the street level and belonging to the defendants which was a public utility company. The fracture was caused during the construction involving underground work by a third party. The Privy Council held that the risk involved in the operation undertaken by the defendant was so great that a high- degree care was expected of him since the defendant ought to have appreciated the possibility of such a leakage.
14. The Privy Council has observed in Quebec Rly., Light, Heat and Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry that the company supplying electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent. Even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account of a violent wind and high-tension current found its way through the low-tension cable into the premises of the respondents was held to be not a justifiable defence. Thus, merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road.
39. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court followed the above judgment in Munni Devi v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2021) 278 DLT 129 and additionally, observed that:
16. Clearly, the cause of death of deceased son of the petitioner is shock due to electrocution. All injuries are ante-mortem in nature.
The death took place due to an electric wire that fell due to storm and rain, which took place before the incident. It clearly follows that on account of the falling of electric wire the deceased got electrocuted and has expired. Admittedly, Respondent 2 BSES RPL is the distribution company of the area in question.
20. In my opinion, facts speak for themselves and the principle of res ipsa loquitur will clearly apply in these facts. In this context reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan, where the concept of res ipsa loquitur was explained. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 21/ 31Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:18:40 +0530 "10. The maxim is stated in its classic form by Erle, C.J.:
[Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co., 601] "... where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care."
The maxim does not embody any rule of substantive law nor a rule of evidence. It is perhaps not a rule of any kind but simply the caption to an argument on the evidence. Lord Shaw remarked that if the phrase had not been in Latin, nobody would have called it a principle Ballard v. North British Railway Co.. The maxim is only a convenient label to apply to a set of circumstances in which the plaintiff proves a case so as to call for a rebuttal from the defendant, without having to allege and prove any specific act or omission on the part of the defendant. The principal function of the maxim is to prevent injustice which would result if a plaintiff were invariably compelled to prove the precise cause of the accident and the defendant responsible for it even when the facts bearing on these matters are at the outset unknown to him and often within the knowledge of the defendant. But though the parties' relative access to evidence is an influential factor, it is not controlling. Thus, the fact that the defendant is as much at a loss to explain the accident or himself died in it, does not preclude an adverse inference against him, if the odds otherwise point to his negligence (see John G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 4th edn., p.
264). The mere happening of the accident may be more consistent with the negligence on the part of the defendant than with other causes. The maxim is based as commonsense and its purpose is to do justice when the facts bearing on causation and on the care exercised by defendant are at the outset unknown to the plaintiff and are or ought to be within the knowledge of the defendant (see Barkway v. South Wales Transport Co. Ltd. ).
11. The plaintiff merely proves a result, not any particular act or omission producing the result. If the result, in the circumstances in which he proves it, makes it more probable than not that it was caused by the negligence of the defendants, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is said to apply, and the plaintiff will be entitled to succeed unless the defendant by evidence rebuts that probability."
21. The above doctrine would clearly apply here. A clear averment has been made in the petition that Respondent 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.
CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 22/ 31Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:18:47 +0530 Clearly based on the above facts and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it is clear that Respondent 2 BSES RPL is guilty of negligence. The death of the deceased took place due to the negligence of Respondent 2.
xxx
49. Coming to the compensation payable to the petitioner. No calculations are mentioned in the writ petition. A bald claim of Rs 30 lakhs is claimed. No details are given.
50. The deceased was doing his graduation from Indira Gandhi National 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. I, accordingly, award a sum of Rs 10,00,000 (ten lakhs only) as compensation to the petitioner.
51. I may note that on 30-8-2019, this Court on the request of Respondent 2 BSES RPL had impleaded Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. as Respondent 3.
52. It is the case of Respondent 2 BSES RPL that the said respondent is covered by the insurance policy of the said Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent 3 denies this.
53. In this circumstance, I direct that the compensation amount will be the liability of Respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally.
It is for them to decide inter se as to in terms of the insurance policy taken by Respondent 2, whether the liability to pay compensation is of Respondent 2 or is of Respondent 3. The payment shall be made to the petitioner within three months from today failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to simple interest @ 10% per annum with effect from today.
40. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rita Sharma v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 19389, has held that:
7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has been electrocuted and as stated by her, there was an iron grill above which the electric wires were passing and she suffered an electric shock. In Raman's case (supra), this Court has held that so long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the Wires is potentially of dangerous dimensions, the managers of its supply CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 23/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:18:53 +0530 have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy which causes electrocution.
8. Similarly, in Sharmita's case (supra), while referring to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari,1 it has been held that even if the respondents are not absolutely negligent, still they are liable to pay compensation.
41. Applying the above precedents in the present case, D-2 is liable to pay compensation for the death of deceased due to electrocution. However, since the plaintiff has failed to prove the circumstance imputed upon D-1 in which it is claimed that D-1 had asked the deceased to clean the water tank, no liability can be fixed upon the defendant no. 1. It is reiterated that D-2 has also failed to prove that it had informed D-1 well in advance about maintaining prescribed vertical and horizontal distance from high tension wires and calling upon her to remove unauthorized construction, if any. Thus, no case is made out against D-1 regarding payment of compensation to the plaintiff in respect of death of the deceased due to electrocution.
42. Now, the Court proceeds to decide the quantum of compensation payable to the plaintiff. No calculation has been provided by the plaintiff as to how she had arrived at the amount of compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. It is pertinent to note that it has been claimed by the plaintiff that the deceased was aged 35 years. As per Aadhar card of the deceased Ex.PW-1/2, his date of birth was 01.01.1987, accordingly he was aged 36 years on the date of incident. He was a labour and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. He was survived by his old aged mother i.e. plaintiff. At this stage, this Court stands guided with the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for computing the CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 24/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:18:59 +0530 compensation amount in claims against Motor Vehicle Accidents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, has held that:
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
40. The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas , Trilok Chandra and Charlie (for claims under Section 166 of the MV Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under Section 163-A of the MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50 years)...
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 25/ 31Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:19:13 +0530
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, has held that:
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
59.2. As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment.
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 26/ 31
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:19:18 +0530 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
44. In view of above precedents, the plaintiff is entitled for compensation in following terms: Multiplier of 15 would be applicable as per the age of deceased. Further, an addition of 40% of the established income shall be applied towards future prospects. The deceased was living independently, while his mother/plaintiff was residing in village, accordingly, 50% shall be deducted as personal and living expenses. The plaintiff is further entitled to the following amount for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses i.e. Rs.18,150/-, Rs.48,400/- and Rs.18,150/- respectively i.e. Rs.84,700/-.
Thus, the compensation payable to the plaintiff is calculated as under:
Head Compensation Awarded
Monthly Income of deceased Rs.15,000/-
(A)
Add future prospect (B) @ 40% = Rs.6,000/-
Less ½ deduction towards (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.6000/-) =
personal and living expenses of Rs.21,000/- x ½ = Rs.10,500/- deceased (C) Monthly loss of dependency Rs.10,500/-
[(A+B) - C = D] Annual loss of Dependency Rs.10,500/- x 12 = Rs.1,26,000/-
(D x 12)
Multiplier (E) 15
Total loss of dependency (Rs.1,26,000/- x 15) =
D x 12 x E=F Rs.18,90,000/-
Medical Expenses (G) Nil
Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
Compensation for loss of Rs.48,400/-
consortium (I) to the plaintiff
CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 27/ 31
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08
16:19:24
+0530
Compensation for loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
(J)
Compensation for funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
Total Compensation Rs.19,74,700/-
(F+I+J+K)
45. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for total compensation of Rs.19,74,700/- from the defendant no. 2. The plaintiff is further entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the said compensation amount from the date of filing of the present suit till the date of payment of the above compensation amount. The issues no. 2 and 3 stand decided accordingly.
46. Issue No. 1Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD-2 Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 2. D-2 has claimed that the insurance company i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company was the necessary party. But, D-2 has not led any evidence in this regard. Even if, D-2 has obtained any insurance policy from the said insurer, it can file a claim before the said company, if so advised. This issue is decided against the defendant no. 2.
47. Relief In view of above findings, the suit of plaintiff is partly decreed. The plaintiff is entitled to recovery of compensation amount of Rs.19,74,700 from the defendant no.2. She is further entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the said compensation amount from the date of CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 28/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:19:31 +0530 filing of the present suit till the date of payment of the above compensation amount.
48. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4046, has provided guidelines for the protection of such award amount and held that:
40. Protection of the award amount The Claims Tribunal shall, depending upon the financial status and financial need of the claimants, release such amount as may be considered necessary and direct the remaining amount to be kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner (For example, if a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- has been awarded to the claimant(s), Rs.
50,000/- may be released immediately and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- may be kept in 50 fixed deposits of Rs. 10,000/- each, in the name of the claimants, for the period of one month to 50 months respectively, with cumulative interest). The Claims Tribunal shall impose the following conditions with respect to the fixed deposits:--
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 29/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:19:38 +0530 cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
49. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal, (2025) 9 SCC 539, has held that
30. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
31. For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts.
50. Accordingly, on realization of the compensation amount and the interest thereon, Rs.1,74,700/- alongwith the total interest component of abovesaid compensation amount shall be released to the plaintiff immediately in her Bank Account of a Nationalized Bank (details of CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 30/ 31 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08 16:19:44 +0530 which be provided by her within 30 days from the date of decision). The balance amount of Rs.18,00,000/- shall be put in 72 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 72 months respectively, with cumulative interest. The amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in the nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence. There shall not be application of mandatorily auto renewal facility for the said FDRs, without specific request of the plaintiff in this regard. The Bank shall also follow the guidelines mentioned in the preceding paragraph no. 48.
51. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. It is worth noting that in respect of the Court fees payable by the plaintiff, vide proceedings dated 27.09.2023 of this case, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kishan Lal v. Renu, in CR 8685/2015 decided on 03.07.2017 and pleaded that the amount of Court fees thereof can be recovered/deducted from the amount of damages which may ultimately be granted to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court fees amount shall be recovered from the amount to be disbursed to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant no. 2 shall deposit the Court fees amount out of the decretal amount in the Court.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA
Announced in the open Court GUPTA Date:
2025.12.08
on the 8th day of December, 2025 16:19:51 +0530
(Naveen Gupta)
District Judge-09, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS DJ 697/2023 Page no. 31/ 31