CHITRA CHARY Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case in which a young and sole bread earner of the family was lost on account of a tragic mishap occasioned due to negligence of the contractor engaged by DDA that left the petitioner No. 1, a young widow and 2 minor children to fend for themselves. Even in the hour of sorrow and grief, petitioner No. 1 showed courage and a social commitment; seen rather as an exception in this country; her late husband was pronounced brain dead. She took a courageous decision and donated his organs, giving a chance for a better life to the recipients. It was a sterling example of the gift of life.

(2.) A sensitive and responsive state apparatus was expected to respond with compassion towards the petitioners. The deceased was no millionaire. He was aged 38 years when he died. Employed with M/s. Jindal Photo Films Limited as a Marketing Executive, he was earning a basic pay of Rs. 4,075/- p.m.

(3.) Undisputed and disputed facts be noted. DDA had awarded the work of construction of peripheral storm water drain in Sector 15, Rohini to a private contractor, Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel. Term of the contract required the contractor to, amongst others; take: