In a long-awaited verdict, a court in Dahod has finally granted justice to a family that lost their 10-year-old son in a tragic accident at a gaming zone nearly twelve years ago. The court has directed the facility's owner and its insurance company to provide compensation of Rs five lakh, plus interest, holding them responsible for the child's death due to electrocution.
A Tragic Day at the Game Zone
The heartbreaking incident dates back to August 12, 2014. Salim Khan and Rubina Pathan had taken their son, Aadil Pathan, to the Six Pocket Game Zone in Dahod town for a day of fun. While playing, the young boy slipped and fell onto the tracks of a toy train ride. Immediately, his hands turned black. He was rushed to a nearby private hospital, but doctors could only declare him dead, suggesting electrocution as the cause.
A subsequent postmortem examination conducted at a government hospital confirmed the initial suspicion: electrocution was the official cause of death. This finding set off a legal battle that would span over a decade, seeking accountability for the fatal lapses in safety.
The Long Road to Civil Justice
Following the incident, the Dahod police had filed a case against the gaming zone operators for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and abetment. However, in a twist, a local court later acquitted them in the criminal case. Undeterred by this setback, the grieving parents pursued a separate path for justice.
In 2016, they filed a civil suit seeking compensation for their immense loss. The case was heard by Principal Senior Civil Judge Pritesh Patel. During the proceedings, crucial testimony emerged from a deputy engineer of the state-run Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd (MGVCL). The engineer revealed that wiring had been improperly run along the toy train tracks, with joints leaving live wires in contact with the tracks themselves.
The court noted that the respondents failed to produce any records proving regular maintenance of the equipment. This, coupled with the engineer's testimony, led Judge Patel to rule that negligence on the part of the gaming zone was evident and directly led to the tragedy.
Court Rejects Defense, Upholds Civil Liability
The respondents in the case—gaming zone owner Naina Shah, her son Kinchit, and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company—had argued that the earlier criminal acquittal absolved them of any liability. The court firmly rejected this argument, stating clearly that an acquittal in a criminal case does not negate civil liability for damages.
The insurance company also tried to avoid payout by claiming its policy excluded amusement rides and adventure activities. The court, however, observed there was no evidence to show Aadil was using a ride at the exact moment of the accident, dismissing this defense as well.
In his final judgment, Judge Patel ordered the payment of Rs 5 lakh as compensation with 9% annual interest, calculated from the date the civil suit was filed. The court directed that the total amount must be paid to Aadil's family within 30 days of the order. This ruling underscores a vital legal principle: the standard of proof in civil cases is different from criminal ones, and negligence can still warrant financial accountability even after a criminal acquittal.
For Salim Khan and Rubina Pathan, the verdict marks the end of a painful twelve-year legal struggle, offering a measure of closure and formal recognition of the preventable loss of their young son.
