The Bhutanese Leading the way.
Court also holds construction company criminally liable for allowing an unlicensed employee to operate heavy machinery
The Phuentsholing Dungkhag Court has sentenced an excavator operator to three years’ imprisonment for negligent homicide in connection with the deaths of a 32-year-old woman and her three-year-old daughter in an accident at Norgay Zampa, Phuentsholing, on 16th August 2024.
In its judgment delivered on 20th October 2026, the court also found Rigsar Construction Pvt. Ltd. guilty of criminal nuisance for knowingly allowing an unlicensed employee to operate its excavator, which was involved in the fatal accident.
The operator, Sonam Gyeltshen, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on each of the two counts of negligent homicide under Section 144 of the Penal Code of Bhutan. However, since both offences arose from the same incident, the court ordered the sentences to run concurrently, resulting in a total prison term of three years.
After deducting the three months and two days he had already spent in pre-trial detention, Sonam has two years, eight months and 28 days remaining to serve.
The court also ruled that his sentence cannot be converted to thrimthue.
The accident occurred at around 8:35 am on 16th August 2024, when Sonam was driving an excavator back to the company’s Amochhu project site after completing work at Damdara.
While passing through Norgay Zampa, the excavator drove onto a designated zebra crossing and struck the woman and her three-year-old daughter, who were crossing the road on foot.
Both the mother and daughter died at the scene.
According to the judgment, Sonam was employed as a labourer by Rigsar Construction.
From May 2024, he had been operating the company’s excavator while its regular operator was on leave.
The company’s supervisors had assigned him to operate the heavy machinery despite his not holding a licence to do so.
On 15th August 2024, the supervisors instructed Sonam to take the excavator to the company’s construction site at Damdara to move stone tiles. As the work could not be completed that day, he was instructed to return the following day.
The court found that Sonam was not eligible to operate heavy machinery under Section 118(2) of the Road Safety and Transport Regulations 2021, which provides that a licence for heavy vehicles and machinery may be issued only to a person aged 21 or above.
Sonam was 18 at the time.
The court held that he should have known that operating the excavator without a licence was unjustified and dangerous.
It also found that he had failed to check whether pedestrians were crossing before driving onto the designated pedestrian crossing, thereby breaching his general duty to drive safely and give way to pedestrians.
Relying on the medical report from Phuentsholing Hospital and CCTV footage, the court established that the two victims died as a result of the accident.
It found a direct causal link between Sonam’s negligent conduct and the deaths and ruled that the prosecution had proved both counts of negligent homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
Meanwhile, the court also found Rigsar Construction Pvt. Ltd. guilty of criminal nuisance under Section 410 of the Penal Code.
The court applied the doctrine of respondeat superior, or the principle of holding an employer liable for offences committed by its employees within the scope of their employment and for the benefit of the company.
It found that the company’s supervisors had knowingly instructed an unlicensed employee to operate the excavator, not in their personal capacity but in the course of their employment. The excavator belonged to the company, and the accident occurred while Sonam was carrying out work assigned by the company.
The court concluded that the company had knowingly created conditions that endangered public safety and that the offence had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
For the offence of criminal nuisance, the company was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, which can be converted to thrimthue under Section 28 of the Penal Code. The conversion amounts to Nu. 45,000, calculated at the national minimum daily wage of Nu. 125 for 30 days over 12 months.
The company has been ordered to pay the amount within 10 days of the judgment, failing which the sentence must be served in prison.
In determining the sentences, the court considered the absence of previous criminal records and the fact that neither defendant was a habitual offender as mitigating factors. It also considered that Sonam had confessed to the police without hesitation and had not acted knowingly or deliberately.
Meanwhile, the judgment also recorded the compensation arrangements between the company and the deceased woman’s husband and father.
The two parties had signed a settlement agreement on 12th September 2024.
The father informed the court, both orally and in writing, that he had no objection to the agreement and no further claims, stating that the company had fulfilled its commitments.
As part of the agreement, the company paid all funeral and ritual expenses and made the necessary arrangements. It also provided Nu. 550,000 in cash as livelihood support to the husband, replacing an earlier agreement to provide a light vehicle worth a maximum of Nu. 550,000.
The company also purchased an education insurance policy worth Nu. 1 million for the surviving son from the Royal Insurance Corporation of Bhutan Ltd., paying a monthly premium of Nu. 7,566 until the child turns 18.
In addition, the company agreed to provide an annual allowance of Nu. 20,000 for the child’s schooling and sponsor his private college education if he does not receive a government scholarship.
The company also agreed to consider him for employment according to his qualifications if he does not secure government employment.
The court ordered that the compensation agreement between the company and the deceased woman’s husband be enforced as agreed.
