Delhi HC grants Rs 20 lakh compensation to ‘barely alive’ electrician after seven years

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhai observed that though Bharat, now 28, was living, he was barely alive and that Bryn and the discom responsible for his 'dismal physical state'.
Delhi High Court (File Photo | Shekhar Yadav, EPS)
Delhi High Court (File Photo | Shekhar Yadav, EPS)

NEW DELHI: In 2014, Bharat Singh, then a 21-year-old electrician working with Bryn Construction Company, fell while rectifying a fault in an electricity pole that was causing fluctuation in power supply at a farmhouse in Bijwasan area of Delhi.

The accident, caused after the pole he had climbed on snapped, left him with 100 per cent disability and completely bed-ridden.  

On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court asked his former employer and BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL) to pay him a compensation of Rs 10 lakh each and directed the Uttar Pradesh government to get a provisional store opened for his benefit from the amount.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhai observed that though Bharat, now 28, was living, he was barely alive and that Bryn and the discom responsible for his “dismal physical state” and the fact that he was now a “psychological” wreck.

“Bharat suffered a fall in the course of performing the task assigned to him by Bryn, which has resulted in him being rendered 100 per cent disabled. Today, he is unable to perform even the most basic personal, daily chores himself and is all but 100 per cent dependent on others; and as a result, though Bharat is living, he is barely alive,” the judge said. 

The court ordered the compensation amount of Rs 20 lakh to be deposited in Bharat’s account within four weeks.

It added that the victim would also be entitled to retain the entire balance lying in a savings account and fixed deposit opened under the instructions of the court in 2016.

Justice Bhambhai also directed the State of UP, where he now lives, to continue to provide to him disability pension, free physiotherapy and occupational therapy and other assistance.

The court said that at the time of the accident, the electrician was performing a task for Bryn and at their instance and “on the principle of ‘strict liability’, both Bryn and BRPL are, jointly and severally, liable to compensate him for putting him in his current state”.

BRPL and Bryn contended that requisite safety equipment and precautions were made available by them.

However, the court observed that the respondents failed to explain why such equipment, if made available, could not protect Bharat or why, if he failed/refused to use such equipment, their officers present at the site allowed him to perform the task without requisite safety equipment. 

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com