Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently directed the DDA to pay compensation of Rs. 11 lakh to the woman and her two children following the death of her husband due to the collapse of their DDA flat in Jhilmil Colony.

The bench, presided over by Justice Dharmesh Sharma, was hearing a plea moved by a wife seeking a comprehensive inquiry by the CBI to fix responsibility on the officials and contractors involved in constructing the multi-storied complex of 816 flats in Jhilmil Colony during 1986–88.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma, while granting the said compensation to the wife, stated, "....Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the DDA is liable for latent structural defects consequent to the allotment of the residential flats, and therefore, it is liable to compensate the petitioners..."

Noting that an ordinary person cannot be expected to detect structural defects in their balcony, the court observed the Jhilmil DDA Flats Residents Association had repeatedly alerted the DDA to the poor construction quality and substandard materials. However, their concerns were consistently ignored.

During the hearing, Advocate D.K. Rustagi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that no DDA official visited the site or even met with the petitioner, and no investigation was conducted into the sudden collapse of the balcony. It was further contended that DDA officials, in collusion with contractors, committed fraud by using substandard construction materials to misappropriate funds.

Conversely, Advocate Ashish Dhingra, appearing for the DDA, submitted that the responsibility for poor or no maintenance lies with the owner/resident of the said property. It was further argued that the flats were constructed in 1986-87 and that DDA was not responsible for maintaining them after such a long period as the area was de-notified in 1993. All building activities, including maintenance, were transferred to the MCD. 

Denying that any responsibility could be attributed to the MCD, the court held that this was a case of res ipsa loquitur; therefore, compensation could be awarded under Article 226. The writ petition was held to be maintainable.

Applying the said principle to this case, the court noted that DDA's negligence caused the balcony collapse, as there is no evidence to suggest that the deceased or his family members took any deliberate action that could have contributed to the seepage or dampness.

Therefore, the court directed "....the respondent DDA to pay a total compensation of Rs. 11,44,908/- (Eleven Lacs Forty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight Only) to the petitioners, in the ratio of 2:1:1 to the widow and the two children, respectively, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present writ petition, i.e., 11.01.2001 till realization within a period of six weeks from today..."

Case Title: SMT. PROMILA RASTOGI & ORS v DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN W.P.(C) 241/2001 & CM APPL. 23863/2024