Delhi District Court
Sh. Adesh Kumar Jain S/O Sh. Chetan Lal ... vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 28 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. P. SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE03,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CS No. 1899/16
1. Sh. Adesh Kumar Jain s/o Sh. Chetan Lal Jain
R/o - 9/1956, Kailash Nagar,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 31
2. Sachin Jain s/o Sh. Adesh Kumar Jain
R/o - 9/1956, Kailash Nagar,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 31 ................Plaintiffs
Versus
1. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.,
(through its Managing Director/ Principal Secretary)
Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, Delhi - 92
2. SHO, PS Gandhi Nagar,
(Defendant no.2 deleted vide order dt. 07.12.20215)
3. Forensic Science Laboratory,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Sector 14, Rohini, Delhi - 96
(Defendant no.3 deleted vide order dt. 07.12.20215)
4. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
14th Floor, Vijaya Building,
Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,
New Delhi, 110001 ............Defendants
Suit filed on - 11.08.2015
Arguments concluded on - 26.10.2020
Judgment pronounced on - 28.11.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Adesh Kumar Jain, his wife Trishala Jain and their son Sachin Jain were leading a happy and a peaceful life. Tragedy struck them on 12.03.2015, when at about 11:30 am while they were at their house on the first floor, three BSES employees came and informed them that the three electricity meters installed in CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 1 of 15 the staircase at the first floor had to be relocated outside the premises. According to them, the meters had to be shifted owing to new BSES guidelines. They showed them the new guidelines. They allegedly ignored plaintiff Adesh's requests to disconnect the electric supply before shifting the meters. On account of alleged bad workmanship on the part of BSES employees, fire broke out while removing the meters. Fumes filled up the entire room where Trishala was resting. Trishala, who was suffering from seasonal bronchitis, felt restless. She became unconscious and fell down. She was rushed to St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi where she was declared brought dead. FIR bearing no. 166/15 PS Gandhi Nagar under section 304A, IPC was registered. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia. The Electrical Inspector inspected the premises in presence of BSES officials, but plaintiffs were not given copy of his report. Plaintiffs were neither given copy of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
2. It is averred that Trishala had been selling children's clothes at the ground floor portion of her house for the last 3 years; that her business had flourished to such an extent that in Assessment Year 20122013 her income was Rs. 2,32,400/ and in Assessment Year 20132014 Rs. 2,34,600/; that she also used to render household services; that she was the principal earning member of her house as plaintiff Adesh did not keep good health and plaintiff Sachin had just completed his studies; that Trishala had brought up plaintiff Sachin, her only son, with great love and affection; that plaintiffs spent Rs. 50,000/ in Trishala's rites and rituals. Besides this, it is stated that defendant no.1 BSES had taken insurance of wires and apparatus from defendant no.4 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. On these averments, plaintiffs seek compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/, break up whereof is as follows: Sl. No. Description Amount CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 2 of 15
1. Compensation for loss of present as well Rs. 15,00,000/ as future income, including future prospects in the income of deceased.
2. Gratuitous services rendered by deceased Rs. 3,00,000/ at the rate of Rs. 2,500/ per month for 10 years.
3. Damages for loss of love and affection, Rs. 2,00,000/ loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.
Total - Rs. 20,00,000/
3. The principal defence of BSES, as set out in its written statement, is that it had given the contract, inter alia, for installation of new meter/ replacement of existing old meters and meter boxes of the locality in question to M/s Shree Vidyut Enterprises (for short 'SVE'); that it was the employees of SVE who had visited plaintiffs' house for relocation of meters; that negligence and consequent liability, if any, has thus to be fastened on SVE. BSES thus pleads that the lis is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party i.e. M/s Shree Vidyut Enterprises.
4. As regards the incident, BSES has a different version to tell. It states that meters were at the staircase which was very narrow, with no ventilation and no scope of escape in case of untoward incident and thus it was dangerous to have them there; that plaintiffs did not let SVE employees relocate the meters from inside the premises to outside despite warned about the danger of having them there; that accordingly at plaintiff Adesh's instance, meters were relocated from one place to another in the staircase itself; that meter boxes were duly fixed on the staircase wall followed by fixing of meters and when the work of connecting the meters with the bus bar was being done, the accident took place; that had the CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 3 of 15 meter box been fixed outside the premises, as suggested by SVE employees, then even in case of accident the smoke would have dispersed within few minutes without causing any harm. BSES denies plaintiffs' allegations that electric supply was not disconnected before relocating the meters.
5. BSES goes on to state that SVE employees were not informed that Trishala was on the first floor; that in fact the room where Trishala was resting was locked and lacked ventilation; that the fact that Trishala was critically ill was not within the knowledge of SVE employees and only plaintiffs were aware of it; that SVE employees were not informed about Trishala's health issues; that SVE employees before undertaking the work had asked plaintiffs and Trishala to either move out of the premises or to go to the terrace; that only the plaintiffs had rushed to the terrace leaving Trishala behind; that on hearing Trishala cough, SVE employees entered the room and found that there was no ventilation; that they searched in vain for first aid in form of inhalers, medicines etc.; that it was SVE employees who rushed Trishala to hospital; that had the plaintiffs been more vigilant and listened to SVE employees, the precious life could have been saved. Denying all other averments, BSES seeks dismissal of the suit.
6. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. in its written statement states that BSES had taken insurance of wires and apparatus from it and which insurance is subject to various terms and conditions and limited by certain exclusions. It states one such exclusion clause is that the 'policy does not cover liability arising out of deliberate, willful or intentional noncompliance of any statutory provision'. It goes on to state that the present case is covered by the exclusion clause inasmuch as the employees had willfully and deliberately acted in a negligent manner while shifting the meters. It further states that as per the forensic report there were no traces of external gas or carbon in the viscera and there was an external injury on CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 4 of 15 the left arm region as per post mortem report. These circumstances, it is stated, indicates that there is no connection between the accident and the death. As per the MLC, it is averred, the deceased was brought to hospital at 04:15 pm after a long gap of four hours despite the fact that she was an asthmatic patient. Denying other averments, it seeks dismissal of the suit.
7. Plaintiffs in their separate replications to the written statements of the two defendants reiterate their averments as set out in the plaint and refute those of the latter as set out in their pleadings.
8. Issues, framed on 15.11.2016, are as under:
1. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e. M/s Shree Vidyut Enterprises as claimed by defendant No.1? OPD1
2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable against the defendant No.4 as claimed by defendant No.4? OPD4
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs. 20,00,000/ against the defendant No.1 and 4 with interest from the date of filing of the suit till its realization? OPP
4. Relief.
9. In plaintiffs' evidence, the following witnesses were examined: I) PW1 Mr. Amar Pal Singh, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He is the author of the FSL report Ex. PW1/A, as per which no common poison was detected in the viscera of the deceased.
II) PW2 Dr. Akash Jhanjee, Specialist Forensic Medicine, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, Delhi. He had conducted post mortem of the deceased. He led in evidence copy of the post mortem report (Mark A) and the final report regarding cause of death (Ex. PW5/2, colly 6 pages). Cause of death was opined to be 'carbon monoxide poisoning'.
CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 5 of 15III) PW3 Mr. Liazley Robert, Medical Record Clerk, St. Stephens Hospital.
He led in evidence the casualty report dt. 12.03.2015, Ex. PW3/A (4 pages). As per this report, the patient was brought dead in the hospital at about 01:14 pm on 12.03.2015.
IV) PW4 Mr. Adesh Kumar Jain, plaintiff no.1. He deposed along the same lines as averred in the plaint.
V) PW5 SI Deshraj Singh, Investigating Officer of FIR no. 166/15 PS Gandhi Nagar, under section 304A, IPC. He led in evidence copy of the FIR as Ex. PW5/1, copy of the subsequent opinion/final report regarding cause of death as Ex. PW5/2 (colly) and copy of the seizure memo as Ex. PW5/3 (seizure of articles/goods from the spot of the incident).
VI) PW6 Mr. Bhupinder Kumar Dass, an official from Income Tax Department, Delhi. He led in evidence income tax returns of the deceased of assessment years 201213 and 201314 as Ex. PW6/1 (colly 6 pages).
10. Defendant BSES in its evidence examined following two witnesses.
I) D1W1 Naveen Singh, Senior Supervisor of BSES. He entered the witness box to depose along the same lines as the pleadings of BSES. He led in evidence scanned copy of a contract order dt. 09.12.2014 (Ex. D1W1/1, colly43 pages) purportedly executed between BSES and SVE.
II) D1W2 Sahil Jain, an official from the court of Ld. MM, Karkardooma Courts, with the police chargesheet (Ex. D1W2/1, OSR, colly 131 CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 6 of 15 pages) of FIR no. 166/2017 PS Gandhi Nagar under section 304A of IPC titled 'State v. Raj Narain & Ors.'
11. Defendant M/s Reliance General Insurance led no evidence.
12. Arguments heard. Record perused.
13. Issuewise findings are as follows.
14. Issue no.1 - The issue is whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of M/s Shree Vidyut Enterprises as claimed by defendant no.1 BSES. Onus to prove this issue was placed on defendant no.1 BSES. It the assertion of BSES that it had given the contract, inter alia, for installation of new meter/ replacement of existing old meters and meter boxes of the locality in question to SVE; that it was SVE employees who had visited plaintiffs' house for relocation of meters and that negligence and consequent liability, if any, has thus to be fastened on SVE. It is on this basis that BSES pleads that the lis is bad for nonjoinder of SVE, a necessary party.
15. In order to prove this, BSES led in evidence scanned copy of a contract order dt. 09.12.2014 (Ex. D1W1/1, colly43 pages) purportedly executed between it (BSES) and SVE. However, there are some fundamental problems with this evidence. Firstly, the original contract did not see light of the day before this court. Secondly, the contract does not bear the signature of the contractor SVE. Thirdly, no person from the office of contractor was called to the witness box to give oral evidence that BSES had indeed given the contract to SVE and that the latter had accepted the contract. This court is of the view that the assertions of BSES that the task of installation of new meter/ replacement of existing old meters and meter boxes of the locality in question had been contracted out to SVE stands not proved.
CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 7 of 1516. It was the argument of BSES that it is an 'admitted fact', going by the police chargesheet Ex. D1W2/1 (OSR), that the work of shifting/replacing meters at plaintiffs' residence had been handed over to SVE. I find no such 'admission' on plaintiffs' part in the police chargesheet Ex. D1W2/1 (OSR). In any event statements under section 161 of CrPC, which are unsigned, are absolutely of no consequence and they cannot be used to prove or disprove a fact in the present civil litigation (see section 162 (1) of CrPC). Besides this, it is to be borne in mind that the contents of a chargesheet are no judicial verdicts. The contents of chargesheet are merely the outcome of police investigation, which are still to be tested in a trial. That apart, even if the criminal court were to hold that there existed a contract between BSES and SVE, yet that would not be binding on a civil court. In K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police & Anr., (2002) 8 SCC 87 it has been held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that possibility of conflicting decisions in civil and criminal courts is not a relevant consideration. It was further held that law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, or even related, except for the limited purpose such as sentence or damages. Thus, the outcome of a criminal case - in the present case there is no such judicial outcome on the criminal side - cannot be binding on civil proceedings. The civil proceedings shall be and have to be adjudicated upon on the basis of material / evidence on record and the outcome of the criminal proceedings, except to the extent indicated in K.G. Premshanker (supra), can have no binding force on the civil proceedings.
17. Lastly, to the consumers of electricity it is BSES that is responsible for installation of new meter/ replacement of existing old meters and meter boxes. Indeed, BSES admits this when it states that this task was its (BSES), and that it CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 8 of 15 had outsourced the same to a contractor. Now, from the point of view of an electricity consumer, the fact whether BSES had actually outsourced this task or not is hardly of any consequence. In the same vein, whether the outsourced agency may have further subcontracted the same, may again be of no consequence from a consumer's point of view. Such a fact may be of consequence in case of an inter se dispute between BSES and the contractor or the contractor and subcontractor. To take an example, an individual 'X' gives Annual Maintenance Contract for upkeep of his computer systems to a service provider 'M/s Y'. The service provider 'M/s Y' outsources/ contracts out the same to another agency, namely 'M/s Z'. In case of tort of negligence / service deficiency, for the individual 'X', it is the service provider 'M/s Y' that would responsible and not the outsourced agency 'M/s Z'. In a civil litigation for negligence / service deficiency initiated by the individual 'X', the outsourced agency 'M/s Z' would not at all be a necessary party, and he can very well seek his remedy from the service provider 'M/s Y'. In such an eventuality, the remedy for the service provider 'M/s Y' would be to initiate a separate action against the outsourced agency 'M/s Z' for suitable reliefs on the plea that the latter had not done what was required to be done as per the inter se contract.
18. To sum up, firstly, for the aforesaid multiple reasons, the assertions of BSES that the task of installation of new meter/ replacement of existing old meters and meter boxes of the locality in question had been contracted out to SVE are not proved. Secondly, in any event, even if such a contract had been proved, yet the outsourced agency SVE was not at all a necessary party. For the alleged acts of commission or omission, the remedy for BSES would be to initiate a separate action against SVE. It is held that BSES has failed to prove this issue. This issue is decided against defendant BSES and in plaintiffs' favour.
CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 9 of 1519. Issue no.2 - The issue is whether plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of Rs. 20,00,000/ against defendants no.1 and 4 with interest from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiffs. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the task of relocation of meters was being done. BSES, through few workers, was getting the same done. It is an admitted fact that while removing the meters, a fire broke out. It is also an admitted fact that Trishala, who was in he room, felt restless and was rushed to hospital where she was declared brought dead. From these facts that have come on record a clear case of negligence on the part of BSES, that was engaged in the process of relocating the meters, is made out. The factum of fire breaking out while relocating the meters itself indicates that the electricity had not been cut off while doing the job. That apart, this indicates work bad workmanship on the part of those doing the job. This is for the reason that if the work of relocating the meters cannot be done without there being a fire in the wires in the meters, this ought to be a case of bad workmanship. D1W1 Naveen Singh in his evidence himself stats that when the workers were doing the job of connecting the meter with the bus bar, the incident took place.
20. BSES avers that plaintiffs as also the deceased were guilty of contributory negligence. However I find that the BSES has been unable to prove this. There is no direct evidence to prove this. No ocular witness was examined to prove this. D1W1 Naveen Singh was not there at the place of accident at the time of the accident. He concedes in his evidence that he was not there at the spot of the accident. A bare reading of his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D1W1/A indicates that he is deposing on the basis of hearsay evidence. He is deposing on the basis of what was told to him by others. Thus, this hearsay evidence of D1W1 Naveen Singh has to be discarded.
CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 10 of 1521. Next, even if negligence on the part of BSES had not been established in the instant case, yet it would have been liable in view of the settled law that supplier of electricity is liable for the damage caused without any proof of negligence on its part and the liability in this context is strict. In this regard, the Apex Court decision in M. P. State Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 551 can be fruitfully referred. This was case where a cyclist was fatally electrocuted on account of his cycle touching a live wire lying on road partially inundated with water. The Apex Court laid down the law that is reproduced as follows: 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.
22. Thus, it is this court's view that there was negligence on the part of BSES. In any event, on the principle of strict liability, BSES is to be held liable. Further, this court is of the view that defendant no.4 M/s Reliance General Insurance is under no liability to the plaintiffs as there is no privity of contract between them. Defendants BSES and M/s Reliance General Insurance inter se are bound by the doctrine of privity of contract visàvis the indemnification as contained in the insurance policy. It is for BSES to put M/s Reliance General Insurance to notice to indemnify it in terms of the insurance policy. However, insofar as the plaintiffs CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 11 of 15 are concerned, it is only the defendant BSES which is liable to pay the aforesaid damages to them.
23. Now comes the question of assessment of damages. It is the view of this Court that damages in the instant case can be assessed on the principles recognised under the Motor Vehicles Act. Deceased's date of birth, as per her income tax papers Ex. PW6/1, is 22.02.1961. Thus she was 54 years of age at the time of the accident. Post mortem report 'Mark A' and the final report regarding cause of death Ex. PW5/2 reflect her age to be 55 years. Her annual income is Rs. 2,32,400/ as per Assessment Year 201213 and Rs. 2,34,600/ as per Assessment Year 201314. Her income tax return for the subsequent Assessment Year(s) is not furnished on record. This court thus takes her actual annual income to be Rs. 2,33,500/ (average income of Assessment Years 201213 and 2013
14).
24. It is to be noted here that in the two income tax returns there are deductions made under Chapter VIA of Income Tax Act under section 80C thereof. It is the view of this court the said deductions under section 80C are to be included in the 'income' of the deceased. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 763 it was observed, "If the dictionary meaning of the word "income" is taken to its logical conclusion, it should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax or professional tax although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable or would have been otherwise taxable but for the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute."
25. BSES had cast a doubt on the earning capacity of the deceased on the following grounds. BSES stated that in reality it was her husband who used to CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 12 of 15 run the shop, while the income returns used to be filed in her name. It was contended that the fact that at the time of incident i.e. at about 11:00 am, she was sitting in her room and not in her shop itself indicates that she in fact was not working. It was also argued that admittedly she was not in good health and as such she could not have been in a position to run the shop. These arguments are meritless. Except for such conjectures and guesswork on the part of BSES there is no material on record to show that her husband was running the shop, while the income returns used to be filed in her name. No witness from the locality has been examined to prove this. That apart, the fact that at the time of the accident she happened to be in her room would not by itself indicate that she was not working. She may have decided to open her shop later in the day on that day. Or, she may have decided to take a day off. Or, she may have come back to her room after spending time at the shop for few hours with intention to go back to the shop some time later. Further, her notsogood health does not ipso facto mean that she could not have been working. After all it is not always that only and only individuals with good health undertake business activity or do some work for earning money.
26. To the actual annual income of Rs. 2,33,500/, 10% thereof has to be added (deceased was 5455 years) towards future income/future prospects, in terms of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, the total income turns out to be Rs. 2,56,850/.
27. Now, from the total income of Rs. 2,56,850/, 1/3rd thereof is to be deducted towards personal expenses {paragraph 30 of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121}. It is to be noted that the deceased left behind her husband and a son aged 18 years of age. Making this deduction, it turns out to be Rs. 1,71,233/. The multiplier in this case would be CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 13 of 15 11 as per Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, the total loss of financial dependency would be Rs. 18,83,563/.
28. Now to loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In terms paragraph 52 of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs. 15,000/ is to be awarded towards loss of estate, Rs. 80000/ {2 x Rs. 40,000/ as the deceased left behind husband and son} towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses. Reference here can also be had to Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 2 SCC 130. Thus, the total compensation turns out to be Rs. 19,93,563/.
29. Plaintiffs claimed also compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/ on the basis that the deceased was also a homemaker on the basis of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi v. Kasam Doud Kumbhar, (2015) 4 SCC 237. However, a reading of this judgment shows that the same is apparently distinguishable. In Jitendra (supra) the deceased, a lady, claimed to be doing tailoring/ stitching/ embroidery work. However, the opposite side disputed this. The Apex Court awarded Rs. 3,000/ per month observing that she would have earned not less than Rs. 3,000/ per month from the stitching/embroidery work. The Apex Court then went on to observe that 'even assuming that the deceased was not self employed and doing embroidery and tailoring work' and she was only a homemaker, yet it would be reasonable to fix her income at Rs. 3,000/ per month. Such is not the case her. Plaintiffs have led evidence to show that she was self employed and used to make earning from her shop.
30. Thus, the total compensation turns out to be Rs. 19,93,563/. Defendant no.1 BSES is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 19,93,563/ to the plaintiffs. On this amount, plaintiffs are awarded pendente lite and future interest of 6% per CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 14 of 15 annum. This issue is accordingly answered in plaintiffs' favour and against the defendants.
31. Issue no.2 - The issue is whether plaintiffs' suit is not maintainable against defendant no.4 M/s Reliance General Insurance as claimed by the latter. Onus to prove this issue is on defendant no.4 M/s Reliance General Insurance. This court is of the view that defendant no.4 M/s Reliance General Insurance is under no liability to the plaintiffs as there is no privity of contract between them. The defendants BSES and M/s Reliance General Insurance inter se are bound by the doctrine of privity of contract visàvis the indemnification as contained in the insurance policy. It is for BSES to put M/s Reliance General Insurance to notice to indemnify it in terms of the insurance policy. However, insofar as the plaintiffs are concerned, it is only the defendant BSES which is liable to pay the aforesaid damages to them.
32. Relief - This suit stands decreed in plaintiffs' favour and against defendant no.1 BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. in the sum of Rs. 19,93,563/ together with pendente lite and future interest of 6% per annum thereon. Costs of the suit is awarded to the plaintiffs.
33. Decree be drawn up. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed byMURARI MURARI PRASAD SINGH Announced in the open Court PRASAD Location: Court No.7, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SINGH on 28th November, 2020 Date: 2020.11.28 15:31:37 +0530 (M. P. Singh) Addl. District Judge03, East, Delhi 28.11.2020 CS No.1899/16 Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. Page 15 of 15