High Court: Court can grant relief of compensation based on strict liability, resulting due to breach of Public Duty[Read Judgment]

The High Court of Delhi, in the case of Dheeraj Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors, Bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 75 Lakh to Petitioner for the negligence and held that A claim of compensation in case of a breach of public duty by an Instrumentality of the State resulting in deprivation of life would be maintainable under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

FACTS

The petitioner suffered a road accident and was admitted to Hospital. He suffered enormous injuries on his body and head. It is further asserted that the petitioner had suffered a hematoma (i.e. an internal injury in the brain) and his skull was operated to remove the hematoma and to relieve the intracranial pressure. The surgery termed as fronto-temporo-parietal decompressive craniotomy‟ was performed and a portion of the skull bone was removed and the free bone flap was kept in the abdominal wall.

The petitioner was discharged from the hospital in a state of unconsciousness. The Discharge Summary Record stated that the petitioner was in a state of altered sensorium, eye-opening to pain, not opening to commands‟. It is stated that the petitioner continues to remain in the same state.

FIR was registered against the petitioner by the respondent under Sections 279 and 337, IPC for rash and negligent driving.

Respondent Submissions

The respondent, however, asserts that these barricades were placed in a well-illuminated area and were visible from a considerable distance. Respondent asserted that the petitioner seems to have tried to slip through the gap in between the barriers and owing to the speed at which the vehicle was traveling, he was unable to spot the chain linking the barricades. It is further asserted that as no helmet or any protective gear of any sort was found at the site of the accident, the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which mandates every person driving or riding a motorcycle to wear protective headgear conforming to the standards of the Bureau of Indian Standards.

Petitioner Submissions

The petitioners dispute the above assertions and have placed on record photographs of the site to show that the barricades were placed at a spot which was not well illuminated and therefore, could not be visible from afar. Petitioner further asserted that the petitioner was wearing a helmet/headgear at the time of the accident.

COURT FINDINGS

1. Placing of barricades by the respondent, though, maybe for valid reasons of security, also casts a duty on the respondents to ensure that they do not cause accidents due to their non-maintenance.
2. It is admitted by the respondents that the barricades in question were not manned. There was no police officer posted with the barricades.
3. the barricades did not have proper blinkers or other warning signs for the motorcyclists. Clearly, the chains tying these barricades together could under no circumstances be visible to a motorist from far.
4. It is not disputed that no one was present at the site of the accident at the time of the accident. In any case, the petitioners are held entitled to their claim of damages for the negligence and failure of the respondent to discharge its duty that is provided in the Standing Order.

Further, the court directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs 75 lacs as a total compensation to the Petitioner for the negligence.

Read Judgment @LatestLaws