Read Time: 10 minutes
“Both the DJB and the State authorities were negligent in their duty to secure the area and prevent unauthorized access. The lack of fencing and safety measures directly contributed to the tragic deaths of the children”, the bench emphasized.
The Delhi High Court, recently, noted that the negligence of the Delhi Jal Board and State Authorities in their duty to secure an area to prevent unauthorized access led to the tragic deaths of children. The court made such observations in a petition requesting compensation for the untimely and tragic demise of the petitioners' nine-year-old son, Master Justin/Joy, who allegedly fell into a pit and died due to gross negligence and dereliction of duty by the official respondents.
The bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed the Delhi Jal Board to “pay a lump sum amount of Rs 22,00,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of incident”.
On July 20, 2016, the 9-year-old child with his friends were flying kites on the rooftops of their respective homes. While chasing a severed kite, the child ran toward a vacant plot owned by Delhi Jal Board, where he tragically slipped and fell into a pit on the property.
The parents, along with neighbors, proceeded to the site and discovered a pit filled with rainwater. A neighbor, Premchand, entered the pit and found the boy submerged. A Police Control Room (PCR) van arrived at the scene, and the deceased was taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, where he was declared dead on arrival. Aggrieved by the alleged negligence of the DJB, the parents approached the Court, seeking compensation of ₹30,00,000/- for the tragic loss of their son.
Advocate Aruna Mehta, representing the parents, argued that the unfortunate incident on July 20, 2016, occurred due to the gross negligence of official DJB in maintaining the vacant land. She stated that the deceased drowned after falling into a pit on the land owned by the DJB.
Relying on the post-mortem report and the FIR registered against the DJB, Advocate Mehta asserted that these documents established DJB’s negligence. Advocate Mehta also rejected any suggestion of contributory negligence of the 9-year-old boy, emphasizing that a minor cannot be held accountable for such negligence.
Advocate Karunesh Tandon, representing DJB, acknowledged the death of the child but contended that no negligence could be attributed to DJB. He stated that the vacant land where the incident occurred had been transferred to TATA Power Delhi Distribution Pvt. Ltd (TPDDL) through a report dated January 14, 2015. At the time of transfer, the land was encircled by a boundary wall and free of encroachments. He claimed that TPDDL possessed the land during the incident and attributed the accident to TPDDL’s negligence and contributory negligence by the deceased.
“Writ jurisdiction can be invoked by the aggrieved persons in cases of violation of the right to life at the hands of the State, as such a remedy is fundamental to public law”, the court noted. The court also observed that “the principal issue which stands posed before the Court is the applicability of the maxim res ipsa loquitur and the requisite standard of proof in upholding the petitioners’ right to receive monetary compensation under the public law remedy”.
The court, citing the case of Shagufta Ali v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors, outlined the essential conditions for applying the legal maxim ‘res ipsa loquitur’ when exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to grant compensation. It held that when State instrumentalities were directly and solely responsible for an incident resulting in death, and the facts were undisputed, the principal could presume negligence based on case-specific facts.
Referring to the case of Subramanium v. DMRC (2013 SCC OnLine Del 2363), the court noted that in the case a child drowned in a stormwater drain, thus the court relaxed traditional approaches to negligence and upheld liability even in tort cases involving State agencies.
Addressing another case of drowning in a pit on DJB-owned land, the court confirmed negligence, noting the land was improperly maintained despite DJB's ownership. Arguments by DJB attempting to shift liability to contractors or another agency were deemed unconvincing, as responsibility for safety persisted with the landowner.
Overall, the court “observed that the said right is not contingent upon the determination of liability, rather on the recognition of the - 16 - incident's occurrence. In such cases, the facts as established by the record speak for themselves and shall attract the maxim res ipsa loquitur”.
For Petitioner: Advocate Aruna MehtaFor Respondent: Advocates Karunesh Tandon, Rahul Chauhan, and Abhishek Singh for DJB, Advocates Manish Kumar Srivastava, Moksh Arora, Santosh Ramdurg, and Yash Srivastava for Police, Standing Counsel Kirtiman Singh with Advocates Waize Ali Noor, Varun Pratap, Mauli,k and Rajeev for TPDDL Case Title: Pravesh Kumar v Delhi Jal Board (2024:DHC:8970)
Please Login or Register
