1995 JTR(SC) 151
1995 AIR(SCW) 1436 ; 1995 2 BLJR 751 ; 1995 1 CCC(SC) 302 ; 1995 1 CivCC 555 ; 1995 1 CurCC(SC) 302 ; 1995 1 JT 547 ; 1995 3 RSJ 48 ; 1995 1 Scale 318 ; 1995 2 SCC 369 ; 1995 2 SCT 416 ; 1995 1 SLR 676 ; 1995 1 UJ 317 ; 1995 KHC 1266 ; 1995 1 KLT(Online) 1009
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE S. MOHAN AND S .B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
SHAKUNTALADEVI(SMT)
Versus
DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING AND OTHERS.
Writ Petition (C) No. 353 of 1994 {Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Decided on 25-1-1995
Advocates appeared:
D. Dave and Maninder Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioner; G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate (C. Markandeya, Ms C. Markandeya, Ajay Singh, H.S. Sharma, Jayant Nath and R.K. Sharma, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21, Art.32
(A) The petition arises under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, read in conjunction with the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, seeking compensation and directions against a statutory public utility for harm caused by its alleged failure to maintain electrical infrastructure. The Life Insurance Corporation of India is drawn in under the policy framework governing accidental death, while the employer is addressed under labour welfare and compassionate appointment norms, all converging on the protection of the fundamental rights of the deceaseds surviving family members and their entitlements to relief and maintenance.
(B) Key legal principles include: public authorities owe a duty of care to ensure safety of life and property; criminal negligence may attract ex-gratia compensation when statutory remedies are slow; life insurance payouts are governed by the terms of the policy and its continuity; and employers may offer compassionate appointments to dependents of deceased employees as an element of social justice.
Facts of the case:
The deceased, the sole breadwinner of his family, died after contacting a live electric wire that had fallen due to negligence in maintenance. Despite complaints to the responsible authority, no action was taken. He was insured under a life policy, and his family faced destitution, prompting a petition for compensation and relief.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statutory utility was negligent and that the family was left in misery. It invoked its powers under Article 142 to grant ex-gratia compensation, directed the insurer to pay the full policy amount, and ordered the employer to offer compassionate employment to the son.
Issues:
Whether the statutory public authority is liable for compensation in cases of criminal negligence; whether the life insurance policy was valid and payable; and whether the employer can provide relief or employment to the deceaseds dependents.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court, relying on Article 32 read with Article 21 and Article 142, held that public authorities owe a duty of care and, where delay would cause hardship, may be directed to pay ex-gratia compensation; insurers must honour valid policies without delving into procedural defaults when the claimant is aggrieved; and the state may offer compassionate employment to mitigate the familys suffering.
Result:
The petitioner is awarded ex-gratia sums totaling one lakh rupees, with specific directions for payment and investment to support the widow and her children, and the employer is directed to offer suitable employment to their son within six months.
(A) The petition arises under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, read in conjunction with the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, seeking compensation and directions against a statutory public utility for harm caused by its alleged failure to maintain electrical infrastructure. The Life Insurance Corporation of India is drawn in under the policy framework governing accidental death, while the employer is addressed under labour welfare and compassionate appointment norms, all converging on the protection of the fundamental rights of the deceaseds surviving family members and their entitlements to relief and maintenance.
(B) Key legal principles include: public authorities owe a duty of care to ensure safety of life and property; criminal negligence may attract ex-gratia compensation when statutory remedies are slow; life insurance payouts are governed by the terms of the policy and its continuity; and employers may offer compassionate appointments to dependents of deceased employees as an element of social justice.
Facts of the case:
The deceased, the sole breadwinner of his family, died after contacting a live electric wire that had fallen due to negligence in maintenance. Despite complaints to the responsible authority, no action was taken. He was insured under a life policy, and his family faced destitution, prompting a petition for compensation and relief.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statutory utility was negligent and that the family was left in misery. It invoked its powers under Article 142 to grant ex-gratia compensation, directed the insurer to pay the full policy amount, and ordered the employer to offer compassionate employment to the son.
Issues:
Whether the statutory public authority is liable for compensation in cases of criminal negligence; whether the life insurance policy was valid and payable; and whether the employer can provide relief or employment to the deceaseds dependents.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court, relying on Article 32 read with Article 21 and Article 142, held that public authorities owe a duty of care and, where delay would cause hardship, may be directed to pay ex-gratia compensation; insurers must honour valid policies without delving into procedural defaults when the claimant is aggrieved; and the state may offer compassionate employment to mitigate the familys suffering.
Result:
The petitioner is awarded ex-gratia sums totaling one lakh rupees, with specific directions for payment and investment to support the widow and her children, and the employer is directed to offer suitable employment to their son within six months.
AJAY SINGH, C.MARKANDEV, D.Dave, G.L.SANGHI, H.S.Sharma, JAYANT NATH, MANINDER SINGH, R.K.Sharma
JUDGMENT
S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.—This is a petition by the widow of deceased Ram Naresh Yadav under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, Life Insurance Corporation of India and M/s Fixwell Push-in-cords Pvt. Ltd., praying for appropriate directions against the respondents to award to the petitioner suitable compensation of Rs 5 lakhs on account of the death of her husband which according to her was caused by criminal negligence on the part of Respondent 1.
2. This is an unfortunate case in which a young and sole breadwinner of the petitioners family was lost on account of a tragic accident in which he got electrocuted by a live wire of electricity which was being supplied at the spot by Respondent 1, the Undertaking. That left the petitioner a young widow and three small children destitute. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at this stage. The deceased husband of the petitioner got employment as gardener in the organisation of Respondent 3, which is situated at Village Dhundahera. The husband of the petitioner was staying at Village Kapashera on the outskirts of New Delhi. The wife of the deceased along with her three children, namely, Anil Kumar (son) aged about 18 years, Anita Kumari (daughter) aged about 16 years and Sunita Kumari (daughter) aged about 9 years was staying in their Village Atepur. The deceased was the only earning member in their family and was maintaining them.
3. The petitioners husband got a policy of life insurance for an amount of Rs 25,000 and his life was insured against accidental death by Respondent 2-Corporation. According to the petitioner her husband was regularly paying the insurance premia.
4. On 8-7-1993 a live main electricity cable/wire which was resting on an electricity pole at Village Kapashera had got snapped and was lying in the rainy and waterlogged village. Various complaints were made by the residents of the Village Kapashera to the officers of Respondent 1 which was statutorily bound to maintain electric installation lines in proper condition. Local police was also informed regarding the disconnection of live wire resulting in leakage of electricity and threat to the lives of the people in their area.
5. According to the petitioner all these requests fell on deaf ears of Respondent 1 which did not take any action in this regard. In the evening when Ram Naresh Yadav was returning from the place of employment, when he was not aware of the electricity leakage, he came in contact with the live cable and got electrocuted on the spot and he died instantaneously. This according to the petitioner was on account of criminal negligence on the part of Respondent 1. As this disaster has left the petitioner and her young children destitute, the present petition is moved under Article 32 of the Constitution presumably relying upon petitioners fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution which have got adversely affected on account of the negligent act of the officials of Respondent 1 herein. She has also claimed appropriate reliefs from Respondent 2. This petition was treated to have been admitted to final hearing. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties in support of their respective cases. Having heard them we felt that it is a fit case for invoking our jurisdiction power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for giving appropriate relief to the petitioner, a destitute widow of the deceased and her young/minor children. So far as Respondent 1 is concerned it is true that the question of negligence of officials of Respondent 1 can be properly examined in a suit where correct facts can be established but as that would involve long delay and the misery of the petitioner and her young children who were stranded in life would linger on we suggest to the learned counsel for Respondent 1 to give a reasonable amount ex gratia to the petitioner and her young children so that their misery can be to some extent lessened. We are happy to note that the learned counsel for Respondent 1 on instruction has left the matter to us. Similarly the learned counsel for Respondent 2, Shri Negi has also gracefully left the matter to us. He however, submitted that if the insurance policy was a live policy, Respondent 2 would have been liable to make full insured amount of Rs 25,000 but according to Respondent 2 Corporation, the policy has lapsed as the deceased has not paid premia for the last few instalments. He further frankly stated that Respondent 2 is not in a position to point out whether any written intimation was given to the deceased about nonpayment of premia and the possible lapsing of policy. He also stated that though there was no statutory rule requiring such intimation to be given to the insured, as a matter of practice the Corporation used to issue such notices or intimations to the concerned insured so that they can clear off the unpaid premia instalments. But in the present case he was not in a position to produce a copy of any such notice issued to the deceased. So far as learned counsel for Respondent 3 ex-employer of the deceased is concerned, he stated that whatever was due to the deceased under the Workmens Compensation Act and as per the rules and regulations of the institution has already been paid to the petitioner. However, he fairly stated that he will have no objection in giving compassionate appointment to the petitioners son, Anil Kumar who is now a major if he makes an appropriate application in this connection to Respondent 3. Respondent 3 will see to it that such employment on compassionate ground is given to the petitioners son Anil Kumar according to his suitability and educational qualifications and appropriate job will be given to him latest within six months from today. Under these circumstances interest of justice will be served by our directing Respondent 1 to pay an ex gratia amount of Rs 75,000 to the petitioner for the benefit of herself and her children Anil Kumar aged 18 years and two minor daughters Anita Kumari and Sunita Kumari. Similarly, we direct Respondent 2, Life Insurance Corporation to pay ex gratia amount of Rs 25,000 which would cover the full amount of life insurance policy of the deceased without going into the wider question whether the policy had lapsed or not on account of non-payment of premia. We also direct Respondent 3 to give compassionate employment suitable to the qualification of petitioners son Anil Kumar. For that purpose, Anil Kumar shall make an application to Respondent 3 at the earliest and on receipt of the said application Respondent 3 will give suitable employment to him at the earliest but not later than six months from the date on which such application is received by Respondent 3. The disbursement of the above said total amount of Rs 1.00 lakh to the petitioner and her young children will be made as under.
6. Respondent 2 shall directly pay to the petitioner Rs 25,000 by bank draft drawn in her favour. So far as Respondent 1 is concerned it shall deposit Rs 75,000 in this Court out of which Rs 25,000 will be deposited in fixed deposit by the Registrar General of this Court in the name of the petitioner for a period of 10 years in any nationalised bank and the remaining Rs 50,000 will be invested in fixed deposits in the name of the concerned minor through her guardian, the petitioner till they attain majority. Rs 25,000 out of the said amount of Rs 50,000 will be deposited in the name of minor child Anita Kumari, while the remaining Rs 25,000 will be deposited in the name of minor child Sunita Kumari both through their guardian, the petitioner. Out of the invested amounts interest accruing due shall be made payable to the petitioner as well as her minor children at the end of each quarter for their maintenance. The aforesaid amount shall be paid/deposited by the respondents concerned within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to these directions to the respondents this petition is disposed of. This judgment is rendered on the peculiar facts of this case and will not be treated as a precedent in any other matter. There will be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.
For Citation: (1995) 2 SCC 369