The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs 30 lakh compensation to the family of a 37-year-old man who died after falling into a pit dug up by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), and urged authorities to formulate a policy to ensure immediate financial assistance to victims in such cases.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the loss of the sole breadwinner leaves a family extremely vulnerable, making even day-to-day survival uncertain, and said such families should not be compelled to undertake prolonged and expensive litigation to secure basic financial relief for incidents attributable to the negligence of public authorities.
Justice Kaurav noted that in the present case, the deceased’s widow, mother and three minor children had been enduring hardship since the incident in 2019, and said that although policymaking is the function of the executive, the court cannot remain oblivious to their plight.
Referring to official data showing that 8,246 people were injured and 3,904 persons were killed in 2023 in road accidents linked to ongoing road works and construction activities, the judge said such incidents are not unforeseeable occurrences but the consequence of administrative negligence and failure to implement basic safety measures mandated for public infrastructure works.
“A structured and effective policy framework for expeditious grant of compensation in cases such as these, would go a long way in ensuring that victims and their families receive immediate assistance without being compelled to pursue litigation for appropriate relief. Such a mechanism would not only alleviate hardship faced by affected families but would also enhance accountability among public authorities entrusted with maintaining public infrastructure and safety standards,” the court said in a judgment delivered on May 29 on a petition filed by the deceased’s family.
“The concerned authorities are, therefore, urged to examine the feasibility of formulating an appropriate policy in this regard, so as to ensure timely, humane, and efficient disbursal of compensation in deserving cases,” it ordered.
On the intervening night of April 17 and 18, 2019, the deceased, who was riding a motorcycle, fell into a ditch dug by the DJB for pipeline repair work in front of its office in Dhichaun Kalan.
He was found lying in the pit the next morning and succumbed to his injuries after a few days.
The DJB contended that the excavation work had been carried out by a third-party contractor and argued that since barricades had been placed around the ditch, the deceased’s own conduct might have contributed to the accident as he may have failed to stop his motorcycle because of the headlights of an oncoming truck.
Rejecting the board’s plea of contributory negligence, the court held that it was the DJB’s obligation to ensure that a hazardous excavation on a public road was adequately safeguarded through continuous supervision, adequate illumination and prompt emergency response.
The court further observed that the deceased had remained in the ditch throughout the night, describing it as a “systemic and egregious failure of the duty of care owed to the public by a statutory authority like DJB”. It said the absence of adequate barricading, warning signs, illumination, supervision and emergency response mechanisms reflected a disregard for public safety and human life.
“The DJB ought to have been well aware that such accidents can occur if a pit is dug on a road that is used by the public. Therefore, in such cases, the duty of the State and statutory bodies does not exhaust itself with the mere installation of barricades, it extends equally to vigilant supervision over hazardous sites and ensuring timely emergency response,” the court remarked.
“The petitioners are entitled to a rounded off lump sum amount of Rs 30,00,000. However, considering that they have received an amount of Rs 50,000 from DJB, the respondents are directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs 29,50,000, along with simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realisation, as compensation to the petitioners, within three months from the passing of this judgment,” it ordered.
The court ruled that the DJB cannot shift the consequences of negligence onto its contractor, though it would be at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings against the contractor in accordance with the terms of the contract.