RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for grant of some monetary succour in connection with the untimely and tragic death of his son, namely, Shri Vikas Gupta. The undisputed facts of the case are that Vikas was driving a scooter bearing No.DL 6S K 5166 on which Shri Kirti was the pillion rider. At the junction of Mandir Marg and Punchkuian Road late Vikas and Kirti drove over a manhole which was three inches below the regular surface of the road. Vikas lost control of the scooter, was flung off, and violently struck against the side/divider railings. Vikas met with a gruesome death, the photographs of which are difficult to view. His face had been smashed to the extent that his teeth and parts of flesh had been severed from the body. The FIR records the statement of the pillion rider but as a practice of a Police Department, the statement casts the blame on the driver Vikas. This incident brings to the fore the common complaint of citizens that while recording FIRs the Police does not always narrate incidents in an impartial manner or even as per the statement of the informant. The lack of probity and independence is evident from the fact that within the short span of 38 days of the death of Vikas, the Police closed the case ostensibly on the basis that the persons responsible for the culpable negligence were 'untraced'.

(2.) There is a plethora of precedents on the powers of the Court to grant relief in such cases. It is now well settled that a claim for compensation can be passed by the Court even in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, as a remedy available in public law. Division Benches of this Court have awarded compensation in Smt. Shyama Devi Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi, 1999 II AD (DELHI) 716 = 78 (1999) DLT 827 (DB); Smt. Darshan Vs. Union of India, 1999 IV AD (DELHI) 209 = 79 (1999) DLT 432 and in Poonam Sharma Vs. .Union of India, 2003 VI AD (Delhi) 373 which is both a comprehensive as well as perspicious analysis of the precedents on the point. This proposition has also been acted upon by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Somari Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., II (1996) CCR 364; and by Justice H.K. Sema, as His Lordship then was, in Smt. Geeta Sangma Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors., VII 1993(2) Crimes 805. These cases were predicated on pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, in Nilabati Behera (Smt.) @ Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) Vs. State and Others, (1993) 2 SCC 746 in which it was observed as follows: "Adverting to the grant of relief to the heirs of a victim of custodial death for the infraction or invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortuous act of the State as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party. The citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right of life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the Courts exercising writ jurisdiction. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the Courts have, therefore, to evolve 'new tools' to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law. While concluding his first Hamlyn Lecture in 1949 under the tile 'Freedom under the law' Lord Denning in his own style warned:

(3.) The Petitioner has impleaded the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Jal Board (DJB), and thereafter the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). In the previous hearing the question that has arisen was which of these Civic Bodies was not .responsible or liable for the death. So far as the DMRC is concerned, it takes over responsibility for maintenance of the roads as and when construction of the Metro commences in that particular segment otherwise the responsibility vests with the MCD.