Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Delhi High Court Holds Negligent Authorities Liable for Child's Death; Awards Rs. 23,33,666/- Compensation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has held the respondents, Northern Railway and another party, liable for the death of a 12-year-old boy and directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 23,33,666/- to the grieving parents. The court found the respondents negligent in their duty, leading to the unfortunate incident.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain and Justice Najmi Waziri, while delivering the judgment, stated, "The respondents were negligent in taking safety measures at the site to prevent any accident. The respondents are jointly and severally liable for their act of negligence and to pay compensation to the appellants." The court emphasized that the liability to pay compensation for a civil wrong and a criminal wrong are independent and mutually exclusive.

The court further assessed the compensation to be awarded, stating, "The appellants are entitled to claim 'Standard Compensation or Conventional Amount' and 'Pecuniary Compensation' from the respondents." The Standard Compensation was determined at Rs. 3,08,666/-, considering inflation and the erosion of the value of the rupee. Additionally, the court awarded pecuniary compensation of Rs. 20,25,000/-, considering the loss of earnings and dependency.

The judgment highlighted the importance of addressing negligence, stating, "The liability of respondents to pay compensation for civil wrongs is not discharged by the compensation received for criminal liability. The respondents cannot be absolved from their responsibility to take proper safety measures and prevent such unfortunate incidents."

This landmark judgment serves as a reminder to authorities to exercise due care and fulfill their duty to safeguard public safety. The compensation awarded by the court aims to provide some solace to the grieving family and holds the respondents accountable for their negligence.

Decided on: 26th May, 2023

SHARAFAT KHAN & ANOTHER  vs  NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANOTHER 

Latest Legal News