Court awards Rs 5 Lakhs to widow of bus driver who died helping accident victims

New Delhi: The Delhi HC has ordered Rs 5 lakh compensation to a widow, who was denied relief on the ground that her husband wasn't killed in the course of his duty as a driver but when he was helping accident

victims

.
The single-judge bench of Justice

Dharmesh Sharma

observed that in the absence of legal protection, it would be impossible for kind-hearted individuals to help

accident

victims.

The bench set aside the order denying the compensation to the widow and directed the matter to be remanded to the employee compensation commissioner.
The bench set aside the order denying the compensation to the widow and directed the matter to be remanded to the employee commissioner who would assess the quantum of compensation which was to be paid to the claimant within two months.

The court was hearing an appeal against an order of the Employee Compensation (EC) commissioner denying compensation to the man's widow under the provisions of the EC Act.

Referring to the views on the Good Samaritan law invoked internationally to stress that those who provide help to a fellow person in need of aid out of benevolence should be protected, the court said, "In the absence of such legal protection, attributes such as 'kind-heartedness', 'kindness', 'empathy' towards strangers, which makes humans social animals they are, who rely on each other for survival and emotional well-being, would be stripped of their very humanity rendering these attributes redundant. Thus, in absence of the legal protection, it would become impossible for individuals with kind hearts to act out of benevolence, help a person in distress or a victim of motor vehicle accident."

The court said that an individual, who out of sheer generosity, helps someone in distress said the person was a 'Good Samaritan' according to the parable in Gospel of Luke in the Holy Bible.
"Thus, Good Samaritan laws shield/protect a rescuer from being sued if the rescue miscarries, except in cases of gross negligence or recklessness. ," the court said.