Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition.

7. Mr. Wills Mathews, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining the electric line which resulted in falling of the overhead electric line and subsequently, electrocution of the deceased. It is stated that the electric wire which had broken down was very old and the residents of the locality had raised several complaints to respondent no.2-BSES, Yamuna Power Limited (hereinafter "BYPL") about the same, but all their requests had fallen on deaf ear. A copy of the representation given by the Residents Welfare Association dated 06.01.2016 has been placed on record, wherein, it is specifically stated that frequent blasts were experienced on Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:08.10.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 17:07:00 KUMAR KAURAV poles No. GTR-190, GTR-195 and pole in front of Flat No.74. An eyewitness is stated to have informed the petitioners that, on the day of the fatal incident, there were sparks around the conductor and the electric line fell, thereafter. Further, it is averred that BYPL may still be using outdated electrical apparatus, because as per the new technology, when a live wire breaks down, the electric supply on the line should automatically shut down.

8. Learned counsel further asserted that the staff of BYPL did not even have the key to the control room at the time of incident and they had to break open the door to switch off the electric line. He further, contended that the respondents are duty bound to ensure proper upkeep of the mechanism for the supply of electricity and no amount of money can compensate the petitioners and their family members for the loss of their only son on account of dereliction of such duty. He further submitted that the deceased was an excellent student and was equally good in sports and extra-curricular activities, which indicates that he would have had a bright future. In order to support his averments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors 1, the decisions of this Court in Baby Anjum th. her Natural Guardian & Anr. v. Chief Executive Officer, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd 2, Mahipal Singh Chauhan & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors 3 and Rajeev Singhal & Anr v. MCD & Anr 4.

"During investigation the PM of the dead body of deceased was conducted and his dead body handed over to his family. As per result of PM report the doctor cause of death was Antimortum Electrocution. During the investigation statement of eyewitness Manoj Kumar was recorded wherein he stated that he was present on his shop on 21.05.17 at about 06:00 pm one electric wire was broke down due to heavy rain and high wind. He complaint in BSES office by phone and requested to cut the power supply but no action was taken from BSES electric department. Meantime, deceased Robin came in contact with broken wire and died due to electrocution. During the investigation the notices was given to BSES officials u/s 91 Gr.P.G to join the investigation who replied that no negligence was found on behalf , of BSES. He further submitted that as maintenance regarding broke down and it repairs of fault was given to outsource to other company M/s BRYN Construction Company, 223-A, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi. The investigation of this case is going on."

28. In Baby Anjum, the plea was for compensation of ₹10,00,000/- for the amputation suffered by petitioner no.1 therein, a 4-year-old girl, after coming in contact with a transformer installed close to her home which was allegedly caused by the negligence of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. This Court noted that the respondent did not contest the facts presented by the petitioners. After taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukamani Das, H.S.EB v. Ram Nath16 and the decision of this Court in Shri Chand v. Chief Secretary, State of NCT, Delhi 17, the Court held that the negligence of BSES was evident and awarded ₹7,50,000/- as compensation.