CHAND Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs together with interest at 18% for the death of his son on 8th June, 2000. Petitioner-Shri Chand claims that his son-Ram Mohan, aged about 21 years, suffered a tragic death when a concrete slab from the water tank fell on his head. Petitioner's son-Ram Mohan had gone to meet his relation-Shri Sujan Singh who resides at Flat No.30, UTSC Complex, PWD (E), Delhi-110092. It is stated that the deceased after taking meals with his relation was returning after drinking water from the tap near the water tank, when the concrete slab fell on him. The deceased was educated upto intermediate and was doing the job of a labourer earning Rs.60/- per day. Petitioner claims to be the only legal heir entitled to compensation. Affidavit from other LRs, namely, brothers and sisters of the deceased conveying their no objection to the grant of compensation to the petitioner father, have been filed and taken on record. The mother of the deceased is stated to have died about 15 years back. Hence the petitioner is the heir entitled to compensation.

(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1, namely, Chief Secretary, NCTD and respondent no.2-Chief Engineer, PWD Zone, NCTD. The writ petition is opposed as involving disputed questions of fact. It is claimed that the deceased was a trespasser in the UTSC complex, where entry of outsiders is prohibited. It is denied that he had come to meet Shri Sujan Singh, living in Flat no.30, UTSC Complex. Allotment of flat to Sh.Sujan Singh is denied. It is claimed that entry to the non-public area comprising Pump House/ Overhead Tank is restricted by providing sign board. The respondents also claim that factum of death occurring due to fall of concrete slab from the overhead tank is not established. There was no eye witness. Besides there was no reason for the deceased to have gone to drink water from the tap near the overhead tank rather than drinking water, in the flat where he had gone to have meals. The version of the petitioner is, therefore, disputed.

(3.) As regards the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that remedy in the civil forum could be pursued, the question is no longer res-integra. The petition is squarely covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Darshan and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., to which the undersigned was a party, reported at 2000 ACJ 578. In Darshan and Ors. (Supra), the decisions of Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera V. State of Orissa, 1993 ACJ 787 (SC), Rudul Sah V. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086, D.K.Basu V. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 as also decision of Supreme Court in P.A.Narayan V. Union of India, 1999 ACJ 374 were noticed and it was held that writ petition for grant of compensation in the case of breach of public duty by instrumentality of the State, resulting in the deprivation of life would be maintainable under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Darshan & Ors. (Supra) was a case of dereliction of duty in leaving the manhole uncovered. In view of the legal position as noted above, it is held that the writ petition for grant of compensation in the instant case, which is also dereliction of public duty, would be maintainable.