Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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