नालिश – Nepal America Legal Information Center

US-Nepal Legal Nexus | Practice | Resources | Networking | Pro Bono



British Embassy, Nepal fails to follow Compensation Laws for wall-collapse-deaths

Per, under British Fatal Accident Act 1976 “close relatives can claim a bereavement payment – the pain and suffering for the loss of a close family member. This is a fixed sum of money and is divided amongst those entitled to claim it. As from the beginning of 2009 the amount is £11 800. You are entitled to claim bereavement damages if you are the wife, husband or civil partner of the deceased. If the deceased was a minor (under the age of 18 years) – you can only claim if you are a parent of the deceased and if the deceased was an illegitimate child you can only claim if you are the mother.”

Likewise, ran headlines in June 2009 as “£30,000 fine for company in tragic wall collapse death accident”.

Similarly, per, in November 2008 “Yorkshire construction firm Illson has been ordered to pay £6,800 after one of its workers sustained serious back injuries when he fell more than three metres from a terrace retaining wall on a construction site in Leeds” and that “A building contractor has been fined £7,000 after a worker broke his back when a wall fell on him at a construction site in east London.”

Furthermore, on February 22, 2011 in an incident similar to Nepal involving a government authority and its negligence to adequately inspect, repair and avoid personal as well as public injuries, made it public that “Parents, whose toddler was crushed to death when a brick wall collapsed in high winds, may now claim compensation from Camden Council in London since its negligence has been found responsible for the fatal personal injury.” It further states that, “The council-owned boundary wall around a housing estate was only half a brick wide and it had been built in the 1970s. Cracks were found in the structure in 1997 and repairs had been made, but these were not carried out correctly. The London Borough of Camden, last year, initially denied it had failed in its health and safety duties but changed its plea in October 2010 to guilty, although saying it had done all that was reasonably practical to ensure the safety of the wall. However, Judge Deborah Taylor found the council’s inspection systems were “wholly inadequate” and that it had been responsible for suitable repairs being completed. The council was fined a total of £72,000 and ordered to pay £65,000 prosecution costs for the offences. The victim’s parents, who may consult a no win no fee solicitor regarding a damages payment, praised the persistent work of Health and Safety Executive inspectors in establishing liability for the personal injury accident.”

As the Embassy of United Kingdom, falls under the similar category of a Government Council, this is a dismay, disregards to the rule of law, equity and equality by the founders of common law. It is clear that the British Government is trying to avoid further liabilities and disregard the customary compensatory tort laws, applicable to the diplomats under the International Law.

The government should immediately demand that a just compensation be made to the grieved families as a just bereavement payment in the similar amount as imposed on Camden Council in London in 2011.


कानूनविद् डिल्लीराज भट्टको भट्ट ल फर्मले नेपाल राष्ट्र बैङ्क, राजश्व अनुसन्धान विभाग तथा नेपाल बङ्गलादेश बैङ्कलाई विपक्षी बनाइ मुद्दा दायर

अमेरिकी अदालतमा मुद्दा
नेपालका सरकारी निकायहरुले आफ्नो रकम विनाकारण जफत पारेको भन्दै क्षेत्री र लि झियाङले युनाइटेड स्टेट डिस्ट्रिक कोर्ट न्यूयोर्कमा मुद्दा दायर गरेका छन् । मुद्दामा नेपाल राष्ट्र बैङ्क, राजश्व अनुसन्धान विभाग तथा नेपाल बङ्गलादेश बैङ्कलाई विपक्षी बनाइएको छ र यसको जानकारी नेपाली नियोगमार्फत विपक्षीहरुलाई गराइसकिएको क्षेत्रीले जानकारी दिए । मुद्दाको कानूनी प्रतिनिधित्व भट्ट ल फर्मले गरेको छ । र्फम नेपाली मूलका कानूनविद् डिल्लीराज भट्टको हो । भट्टले भने, ‘अन्तरराष्ट्रिय वस्तुको बिक्रीसम्बन्धि भियना कन्भेन्सन, अन्तरराष्ट्रिय व्यापार तथा ब्याङ्किङसम्बन्धि अन्तरराष्ट्रिय कानूनविपरीतको काम भएकाले मुद्दा दायर गरिएको हो ।’ भट्टले चेज बैङ्क र नेपाल बङ्गलादेश बैङ्कबीच रकम हस्तान्तरणको सम्झौता हुँदा भुक्तानीको सिलसिलामा कुनै अप्ठ्यारो भए न्युयोर्कको कानूनअनुसार हुने उल्लेख गरिए पनि बङ्गलादेश बैङ्कले समेत सम्झौता मिचेको बताए । उनले कारोबार सबै कानून बमोजिम भएको प्रमाण आफूहरुसँग सुरक्षित रहेको दाबी पनि गरे । तरला इन्टरनेशनलका मालिक क्षेत्री २२ वर्षेखि अमेरिका बस्दै आएका छन् । उनको पुर्ख्यौली घर डडेलधुरा हो ।

More at:


Crime Victim Compensation Programs in the US States

National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards

Crime Victim Compensation Programs

Contact List – September 1, 2009


Cassie Jones, Executive Director

Alabama Crime Victims Compensation Commission

P.O. Box 231267

Montgomery, AL  36123-1267

(334) 290-4420    FAX: (334) 290-4455

1-800-541-9388 (victims only)


Kate Hudson, Administrator

Violent Crimes Compensation Board

P.O. Box 110230

Juneau, AK  99811-0230

1-800-764-3040  FAX: (907) 465-2379


Tony Vidale, Manager

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

1110 W. Washington St., Suite 230

Phoenix, AZ  85007

(602) 364-1146    FAX: (602) 364-1175



Avis Lane, Administrator

Crime Victims Reparations Board

Office of the Attorney General

323 Center St., Suite 600

Little Rock, AR  72201

(501) 682-1020    FAX: (501) 682-5313/683-5569

1-800-448-3014 (in-state)


Julie Nauman, Executive Officer

Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board

P.O. Box 48

Sacramento, CA  95812-0048

1-800-777-9229    FAX: (916) 491-6420 Continue reading “Crime Victim Compensation Programs in the US States”

Justice and Compensation for Nepalese Killed in US !

Case Study 1: Shooting at night club leads to 3.5 million dollar verdict[i]. An OH law firm represented the mother of an 18 year old young man who was shot and killed at a night club. He was standing watching a fight take place, when an unknown assailant discharged a firearm, killing our client’s son. A claim was brought against the night club for improper security, resulting in a 3.5 million dollar judgment.

Case Study 2[ii]: Members of greater Boston’s Nepali community, which numbers about 6,000 to 7,000, are calling for justice and trying to raise money to cover funeral expenses after one of their own was gunned down behind the counter of a Tedeschi’s store. The president and C.E.O. of Tedeschi’s stores put out a statement saying he’s is deeply saddened by the loss of SURENDRA DANGOL to a senseless act of violence.

Anyone with information is asked to call the Homicide Unit at 617-343-4470. Individuals wishing to provide information anonymously may do so by calling the CrimeStoppers Hotline at 1-800-494-TIPS or texting ‘TIPS’ to CRIME (27463).

Case Study 3[iii]: Missouri City Police have arrested a 17-year old Raymond Whitcher in the case of Ashok Bhattarai’s murder. Full story here. A Nepali student who was working his shift at a convenience store in Missouri City, Texas, was shot with a rifle and killed during a robbery on Sept. 28.

Case Study 4: The Council on American-Islamic Relations[iv] (CAIR) called on the FBI to investigate a possible bias motive for the murder of a Texas convenience store owner, allegedly shot to death by a suspected white supremacist. Surveillance video showed that the store owner, 50-year-old Naushad Virani, was shot during a robbery Friday night in Liberty County, Texas. Local authorities are investigating whether the murder was a hate crime. When arrested, the alleged killer told deputies: When I saw that all of you were white I decided to give up and not fight. ” He also reportedly admitted that he shot the store owner. The suspect in the case has a lengthy criminal record and is believed to be a member of a white supremacist group. He has many tattoos, including a Nazi SS symbol on the right side of his neck. A CAIR representative in Texas is in touch with the family of the victim.


List of Incidents leading to death of Nepalese in the US

City and State Venue Victim Incident Status
Boston, MA Convenience Store Surendra Dangol, 40 December 27, 2009 Fatally shot dead. Criminal at large
Missouri City, TX First Stop Food Store Ashok Bhattarai, 21 September 28, 2008 Fatally shot dead. 17-year-old Raymond Whitcher for the murder.
Bedford, TX D&S Food Store in Bedford. Gaurab Rajbanshi, 28 June 11, 2007 Theodis Dodson pleaded guilty to capital murder and received a life sentence. Jeff Dodson is being tried for the death penalty for killing. Fredrick Hughes was in the get-a-way car and was found not guilty.
East Fort Worth, TX TL Food Store Jas Bahadur Rai, 48 January 7, 2009 Leonard Junior Coulter, 46, was arrested
Baltimore, MD Texaco gas station Himank Karki, 21 August 27, 2007 Fatally shot dead. Criminal at large
TX Leon County, Amrit Dhital, 21 January 7, 2006 Car Accident not at fault
TX Leon County, Puskar Acharya, 21 January 7, 2006 Car Accident not at fault
TX Leon County, Prahlad Gurung, 22 January 7, 2006 Car Accident not at fault
TX Leon County, Subash Gurung, 20 January 7, 2006 Car Accident not at fault
MN Southern Minnesota highway. Utsav Basnet, 19 January 4, 2006 Car Accident-Not at fault
MN Southern Minnesota highway. Bedija Kharel, 20 January 4, 2006 Car Accident-Not at fault
MN Southern Minnesota highway. Nishma Timilsina, 21 January 4, 2006 Car Accident-Not at fault

Dangers of Death and Serious Injury while working at the Retail Stores and gas Stations:

Accidents that are caused by defective or dangerous property, either inside or outside a building, are called “premises liability” accidents. Here are the general guidelines for premises liability accidents on legal responsibilities. Accidents that are caused by defective or dangerous property, either inside or outside a building, are called “premises liability” accidents. These accidents can take place at commercial buildings (stores or offices), residences (private homes or rentals), or on public property (parks, streets, or public transportation).[v]

The Basic Liability Rules for Premises Accidents

There are two basic rules to determine who is responsible for a premises accident.

Rule One: The Owner Must Keep the Property Safe

The owner or occupier of property has a legal duty to anyone who enters the property — as a tenant, a shopper, or a personal or business visitor — not to subject that person to an unreasonable risk of injury because of the design, construction, or condition of the property. The reason for this rule is simple: The owner has control over the safety of the premises and the visitor does not. For example, if the owner of an apartment building does not fix a broken piece of tile in the entrance hall, he or she is responsible if a visitor trips on that tile and is injured.

Rule Two: The Visitor Must Use the Property Normally

The second rule of premises liability applies to the conduct of the injured person. If a person gets injured while acting in an unexpected, unauthorized, or dangerously careless way, the property owner or occupier is not responsible. For example, if a guest swings down the stairs on the handrail, the handrail breaks, and the guest is injured, the owner will not be held responsible.

What about Injured Employees?

These rules extend to employees who are injured on their employer’s property; however, employees must file a worker’s compensation claim rather than a private injury claim.

Commercial Property

If you are injured at a store, office, or other business, whether the owner or occupier is legally responsible for your accident is usually determined by where the accident occurred and what the lease or other business contract says about such liability. You should notify the business about your accident and injuries. The business’s insurance company will either handle your claim itself or pass the matter on to the building owner’s insurance company.

A store owner is responsible for the safety of staff inside the store as well as the safety of all those outside in the parking lot. If they fail to keep their premises safe, then they are considered liable for any harm caused be their negligence. Retail store negligence cases can include accidents that occur on the premises, attacks and assaults that occur on the premises, and any harm that occurs as a result of an illegal sale. A retail store negligence attorney must be contacted as soon as possible.

According to the law, property owners are obligated to provide safe, secure and properly maintained premises. Regardless of how or why a person enters a property, property owners may be held liable if injury occurs. Many factors can impact the outcome of a premises liability case. Was the injured party (entrant) an invitee, licensee, or trespasser? Did the injury result from a natural or artificial condition of the premises? Was the property satisfactorily maintained? Was the facility inadequately secured?

Generally, the law provides for compensation of preventable accidents. Recompense may include loss of income, medical bills, as well as consideration for pain and suffering. Many businesses and homeowners carry premises liability insurance; however insufficient insurance leaves the property owner personally responsible for additional monies. If offered an insurance settlement, it is wise to consult with premises liability attorneys who will evaluate the case and ensure that the client’s interests are protected.

Late Surendra Dangol and Justice

Massachusetts has just changed its premises liability law with regard to self-service retailers.  On April 17, 2007, Massachusetts’ highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, decided Sheehan v. Roche Brothers Supermarkets, Inc., which lightens plaintiff’s burden of proof in slip and fall cases. In Sheehan, the plaintiff slipped on a grape inside a supermarket sustaining significant injuries that required a month of hospitalization.  In reversing a decision for the defendant, the Supreme Judicial Court adopted a new approach to premises liability.

Previously, Massachusetts followed the traditional approach for premises liability cases.  That is, a store owner simply had to “maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk.”  Thus, a store owner could only be held liable for an injury if the owner had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the dangerous condition and had sufficient time to fix the condition. In deciding to forego the traditional approach in favor of a “mode of operation approach,” the Court stated that the switch was necessitated due to the change in individualized clerk-assisted retail stores to self-service retailers.  Due to the prominence of self-service businesses, the Court stated that focus should be on the reasonable foreseeability of a patron’s carelessness.  Consequently, where a store’s chosen mode of operation makes it reasonably foreseeable that a dangerous condition will occur, a store owner may be held liable for injuries if the plaintiff proves that the store owner failed to take reasonable precautions necessary to protect him or her from the foreseeable dangerous condition.

Although the plaintiff no longer needs to show that a store owner had notice of the dangerous condition, in order to prove a claim the plaintiff must do the following:

(1) Show the injury was attributable to a reasonably foreseeable dangerous condition on the owner’s premises that is related to the owner’s self-service mode of operation;

(2) Show the owner failed to take reasonable measures, commensurate with the risk involved, to prevent the injury; and

(3) Persuade a jury that the owner acted unreasonably.  Based on the Sheehan decision, all store owners, especially those which allow patrons to obtain their own goods, must take significant precautions to protect the safety of their patrons[1].

Who is responsible then?

Generally, a store owner is responsible for the safety of staff inside the store as well as the safety of all those outside in the parking lot. If they fail to keep their premises safe, then they are considered liable for any harm caused be their negligence. Retail store negligence cases can include accidents that occur on the premises, attacks and assaults that occur on the premises, and any harm that occurs as a result of an illegal sale. A retail store negligence attorney must be contacted as soon as possible.

A quick Google for Personal Injury Lawyers (retail store negligence) in Boston, MA shows the following results:

Generally, an initial consultation with these law firms is free. It is possible that the lawyer may agree to work on a contingent basis e.g. 1/3 of the amount recovered as the fee. If one has suffered a serious injury in a premises liability accident, don’t assume there isn’t anything you can do about it. The property owner’s insurance company won’t stand up and fight for your financial interests[vi].

Sadly, Nepali lawyers are mostly based in New York, who cannot practice a MA law with NY License. This raises the concern of legal representation and lawyers from our community in all states resided by Nepalese. ANLUS is ALWAYS willing to assist the family and community to get connected with an attorney for appropriate legal action ASAP. Please communicate regarding this matter at OR leave a message at

Disclaimer: Information and News article excerpts used in this article are not intent to violate IP laws but a mere attempt of dissemination for public interest.








ANLUS welcomes Yog. P Upadhyay, Ph.D. (BNLA) as a member

ANLUS heartly welcomes Yog. P Upadhyay, Ph.D. (BNLA) as a member pursuant to his desire of affiliation with us.

Y.Upadhyay, Ph.D is not practicing at the moment but is involved in teaching and research in the UK universities, is mainly based at Sheffield Institute for Biotechnological Law and Ethics (SIBLE) which is an interdisciplinary research centre within the school of Law, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. He is constantly working towards getting the Nepalese Law Practice License recognized in the UK.


Yog Upadhyay Ph.D, Sheffield Institute for Biotechnological law and Ethics (SIBLE) School of Law, University of Sheffield, is working in various issues in relation to law and biotechnology with special focus on legal and moral philosophy. He has worked as a Research Associate, Sheffield Institute for Biotechnological Law and Ethics (SIBLE), School of Law, The University of Sheffield in EU FP6 project “Co-Extra”, investigating Legal, Ethical and regulatory issues on the co-existence of GM and Non-GM food within supply chains in EU ; EU FP6 project “FASTER”, investigating Intellectual property and conflict of laws issues in the trade/use of intellectual property through a network of networks and project PRIVIREAL (EU FP5 project investigating privacy and data protection under EU directive in the beginning of 2004).

He also served as a Post Graduate Tutor, School of Law, The University of Sheffield where he taught Understanding Law I and II (Includes basic teaching on Legal theory, Law of Contract, Equity and Tort) for the first year undergraduate Students through Seminar and colloquia and also delivered some seminars for LL.M intellectual Property (Covering international regime on Intellectual property and its relation to new technology specially TRIPS and its impact on new technology and some ethical considerations in last academic year) in addition to “MA in Biotechnological law and Ethics (MABLE)” through seminars and discussion groups with various other involvement in the MABLE, modules on “healthcare law and ethics”, Law of Contract, Sale of Goods, Company Law, Agency etc. on ACCA and BBS, Representation and Protection of the interest of Least Developed Countries in WTO” with Prof. Marise Cremona and Dr. Laukas A. Mistelis.

He has also been involved in teaching some seminar on “Post Graduate Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration”, served as a Court Member in ICC, International Court of Arbitration and practiced as an associate Advocate at Prof. Dhruba Bar Singh Thapa & Associates, Legal Research Associates and Lohani & Associates. Additionally he was a lecturer of commercial law at Apex College and Chartered Academics International.

He completed Ph.D from, School of Law, University of Sheffield, UK on North-South Conflict on Plant intellectual property Rights, LL.M (Commercial Law) and BL from Tribhuvan University, Nepal.

Some of his scholarly works include Liability under Bio-safety protocol, Business Law: Present and Emerging Trends, ‘Negotiating liability Under Biosafety Protocol’, Biodiversity Management and Food Sovereignty: Implementation Challenges for South Asia (2009), Biodiversity protection in the new constitution of Nepal (2009), Liability and Redress under Article 27 of Bio-safety protocol: Some options., Genomics, Society and Policy, Conflict of laws and Intellectual Property, Sui Generis System for protection of plant : Some options for least developed countries, Nature of WTO Dispute Settlement: Is it judicial?, Arbitration for Farmers,  Right to Die : Moral and Ethical aspects of assisted Suicide, Conflict of laws and policy issues in Intellectual property , Legal regime on Coexistence of Genetically Modified and Non-Modified Food, Legal Aspect of Creating International Financial Services Centre in Nepal, Judicial Discretion in Nepal: Principle and Practice, Dispute Settlement Mechanism of WTO and Least Developed Countries, Arbitration in Nepal,  Issues of Liability under Biosafety protocol, Protecting Traditional Knowledge under Multilateral Framework, North-South Conflict in Agriculture Bioethics and Liability and redress issues in the use of GM Crops: European legal regime.

He is affiliated with Nepal Bar Association, Nepal Bar Council, IUCN Commission on Environmental Law and special commission on Indigenous people, Small Claim Arbitration Group, ICC, International Court of Arbitration, Paris France and International Chamber of Commerce, Nepal National Committee.

Call for Papers – Law and Conflict Resolution

The Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution (JLCR) is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal published monthly by Academic Journals ( JLCR is dedicated to increasing the depth of the subject across disciplines with the ultimate aim of expanding knowledge of the subject.

Call for Papers

JLCR will cover all areas of the subject. The journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts that meet the general criteria of significance and scientific excellence, and will publish:

  • Original articles in basic and applied research
  • Case studies
  • Critical reviews, surveys, opinions, commentaries and essays

We invite you to submit your manuscript(s) to for publication in the monthly issue. Our objective is to inform authors of the decision on their manuscript(s) within four weeks of submission. Following acceptance, a paper will normally be published in the next issue. Instruction for authors and other details are available on our website;

JLCR is an Open Access Journal

One key request of researchers across the world is unrestricted access to research publications. Open access gives a worldwide audience larger than that of any subscription-based journal and thus increases the visibility and impact of published works. It also enhances indexing, retrieval power and eliminates the need for permissions to reproduce and distribute content. JLCR is fully committed to the Open Access Initiative and will provide free access to all articles as soon as they are published.

Best regards,

Imonivwerha Ochuko,

Editorial Assistant


Dr.Ovunda Vincent Christopher Okene,


Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution

E-mail: , manuscripts.jlcr,,

ISSN 2006-9804

(Shared for public interest based on an email received from the journal. Jurists are highly encouraged to participate.)

Melissa Upreti, Senior Regional Manager and Legal Adviser for Asia

Melissa Upreti is Senior Regional Manager and Legal Adviser for Asia in the International Legal Program. She is coordinator and main editor of two of the Center’s signature publications, Women of the World, South Asia, and Women of the World, East and Southeast Asia. She led a fact-finding mission to investigate women imprisoned for abortion in Nepal and is coauthor of Abortion in Nepal: Women Imprisoned. She has designed and conducted human rights trainings in India, Nepal, and the Philippines and is involved in reproductive rights litigation projects in those countries. More recently, she was instrumental in securing the constitutional recognition of reproductive rights in Nepal and has been involved in efforts to promote the use of the Optional Protocol to CEDAW in the region. Prior to joining the Center in 2000, she was a Program Officer at the Asia Foundation in Nepal. She has a LLB from India and received her Master of Laws from the Columbia University School of Law, where she was a Stone Scholar.



Since 1953 the lawyers started to practice law at the Nepalese courts. In the span of nearly 4 decades, today the Nepalese Bar has emerged as a strong organization. Until the promulgation of the Bar Council Act in 1992, lawyers were under the supervision and control of the Supreme Court. Presently the Bar is administered by the Nepalese Bar Council headed by the Attorney General of Nepal. The Bar Council of Nepal is a policy making body, which is also responsible for conducting the qualifying tests to enter into the Bar. Besides, the Council has to work for the professional development of lawyers as well as to look into disciplinary matters relating to the Nepalese lawyers.

Organization of the Bar

Nepal Bar Association is the central organization of the Nepalese Bar. Supreme Court Bar Association, Appellate Court Bar Associations and District Court Bar Associations are established under the Nepal Bar Association. Nepal Bar Association is also a policy making body of the Nepalese Bar.

Classification of lawyers

Lawyers in Nepal are classified into three categories:

  1. Senior Advocate: The Supreme Court awards the title of Senior Advocate to any Advocate of reputation with a minimum of 15 years of experience and having significant contribution in the society in the field of legal practice.
  2. Advocate: The Bar Council is empowered to award the title of advocate to any law graduate, or a pleader with 15 years of experience, or a pleader holding a law degree with 7 years of experience, or any retired judge and officer of Nepalese Judicial Service with 5 years of experience and any law teacher with 5 years of experience provided that they qualify in the Bar entry test for the Advocates.
  3. Pleader: The Bar Council is empowered to award the title of Pleader to any person holding intermediate degree in law or who has worked as an agent for a minimum of 5 years and who has qualified in the Bar entry test for the Pleaders.

The Senior Advocates and Advocates may plead and practice in any courts in the country. The pleaders may plead and practice in all the courts other than the Supreme Court.

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑