PRESS RELEASE

New Delhi, Dated: 22nd April, 2015

The National Human Rights Commission, in a case of electrocution of a 2 year old child, Pradeep, did not agree with the argument of the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) that the lapse was totally of a contractor and not of their officers and recommended Rs.1.5 lakh as relief to the next of kin of deceased, which the Corporation eventually paid. The child was electrocuted on the 3rd September, 2012 in Swami Dayanand Hospital, Delhi, where his parents were working as labourers on the construction site of a new block.

Earlier, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Commission, the EDMC had argued that "The department is of the view that prima-facie, no lapses can be attributed on the part of the JE (Elect.) and AE (Elect.), Shahdra (North) Zone, EDMC. However, stern warning had been issued to them to be careful in monitoring of works of this nature."

The EDMC also said that on the basis of plea bargain, the court had already convicted the concerned contractor's security guard, who had paid Rs.50 thousand to the father of the deceased as compensation on the direction of the court.

The Commission had observed that on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not inclined to accept that it was the sole responsibility of the contractor to check safety measures regarding sub-meter or other electrical installation done for the execution of the work by EDMC through its officers. The report of Deputy Commissioner, EDMC dated the 19th February, 2012 and the reply of the Chief Engineer (Electricity), EDMC dated the 29th October, 2013 to the show cause notice, if read together, make it amply clear that it was the responsibility of the JE, Electrical to monitor the work.

The report of the Deputy Commissioner clearly said that the JE and the AE, Electrical, who were responsible to monitor and supervise the work done by the contractor, failed in their duty in this case. Their failure resulted in the unfortunate death of a small child.

Consequently, the Commission observed that the EDMC cannot escape its liability to compensate the next of kin of the deceased. It also observed that the sum of Rs.50 thousand, paid as compensation by the accused to the father of the deceased child in the criminal case in the matter, appeared to be inadequate and therefore, it recommended an additional amount of Rs.1.5 lakh as relief to the victim's family.

The Commission had taken cognizance of the issue on the basis of a complaint filed by a human rights activist received on the 4th September, 2012.

*****