Delhi High Court enhances compensation to be paid to family of deceased minor boy due to negligence of respondents

Delhi High Court enhances compensation to be paid to family of deceased minor boy due to negligence of respondents

Recently the Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain of Hon’ble Delhi High Court set aside Hon’ble Single Judge order wherein the court declined to grant enhance compensation to family of deceased who died due to alleged negligence of respondent and Hon’ble Division Bench also enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,33,666/- with 6% interest after considering and calculating the pecuniary loss and standard compensation according to prevailing norms and Hon’ble court further held that respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation to the appellants..

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The deceased boy  aged about 12 years had fallen in the temporary well which was filled with water at the site located between Peeli Mitti Railway line and Metro line. The alleged accident took place due to the negligence of the contractor who was carrying out the work at the site. Parents of the deceased boy claim compensation to tune of Rs 15,00,000/-. However they got only Rs. 3,10,000/- as compensation amount. Respondent also filed petition to quash the F.I.R. mentioning therein that they have already paid the compensation amount. Their Writ Petition was disposed of with no further directions.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS

The appellants contended that the impugned order has not considered the various decisions delivered by the Supreme Court as detailed in the LPA and section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, they seeked that the respondents be directed to pay an additional compensation of Rs.20,23,771/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the appeal till its realization. Further it was stated that the appellants are entitled to the standard compensation of Rs.50,000/- as per the law laid down in Kamla Devi vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Another, 114 (2004) DLT 57and Rs.20,25,000/- as pecuniary compensation after applying the multiplier method

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

The counsel for the respondents argued that sufficient compensation had already been paid to the appellants at the time of quashing of FIR bearing no.187/2013 registered under sections 290/304A which was quashed vide order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Crl.M.C no.2644/ 2015. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

HON’BLE COURT’s OBSERVATIONS

Hon’ble Division Bench while observing scope of Civil Negligence observed that :-

“The Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew V State of Punjab and another, (2005) 6 SCC 1 differentiated between civil and criminal negligence. It was also observed that civil negligence primarily raises two issues which are: i) was the defendant negligent? ii) If so, should the defendant bear the loss in this particular set of circumstances? .”

Hon’ble Court further while setting aside the order passed by Hon’ble Single Judge observed that :-

“The learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition merely on the ground that the appellants had already received Rs.3,10,000/- as compensation at the time of quashing of FIR bearing no.187/2013 and the learned Single Judge should have considered entitlement of the appellants to claim compensation independent of receipt of Rs.3,10,000/- from the respondent no.2 by the appellants as compensation. The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside being legally unsustainable.”

The Court while further on the point of negligence on the part of respondent and enhancement of compensation observed that :-

“Negligence, in its ambit, comprises three constituents which are: i) a legal duty on the part of the party complained of to exercise due care towards the party complaining of the former’s conduct; ii) breach of the said duty, and iii) consequential damage. The duty to take care is essential before a person can be held liable for negligence. The person concerned is obliged to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which she/he could reasonably foresee, would likely injure other persons.”

Hon’ble court further relied on the Kamla Devi Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 114 (2004) DLT 57, Varinder Prasad Vs. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. &Others, 190 (2012) DLT 293 to determine what should be the standard compensation in such cases and quoted Para 21 of Kamla Devi (Supra).

The court also relied on Lata Wadhwa V State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 wherein the Hon’ble SC has assessed the Standard Compensation at Rs. 50,000/- for fatal accident happened in 1989. It was further held that n Kamla Devi that the Standard Compensation for subsequent years has to be determined after considering rising inflation and continuous decline in the value of the rupee and should be enhanced further for subsequent years based on Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers [CPI(IW)] brought out by the Labour Bureau, Government of India. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is stated to be an economic measure that determines the average alternation in prices of goods and services bought by households over a period of time.

Hon’ble SC further that “As observed in Varinder Prasad, on the basis of Kamla Devi, i) for assessment of the pecuniary loss of dependency, the income of parents can be taken as a standard measure for arriving at the expected annual income of the children and ii) the method of calculating the compensation for pecuniary loss of dependency depends upon the potential earning capacity of the deceased, had she/he attained adulthood.”

In view of the above findings, Hon’ble court allowed the Appeal filed by the parents and increased the compensation to the tune of Rs. Rs.23,33,666/- with 6% interest.

Case title :- Sharafat Khan & another Vs. Northern Railway & another

Case no. :- LPA 615/2019

Order date :- 26.05.2023