Res Ipsa Loquitur Principle Applies: Delhi HC Orders MCD To Pay ₹10L Compensation To Parents Of Minor Who Died After Concrete Slab Fell On Him
|The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to pay Rs. 10 lakh in compensation to the parents of a minor child who tragically lost his life after a slab of concrete fell on him in an MCD-owned property. The boy was 17-years old at the time of the incident.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found the MCD liable due to its negligence in maintaining safe conditions at its premises.
The Court's ruling was based on the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur', a legal doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury, in this case implicating the MCD for failing to uphold safety standards on its property. "This Court unhesitatingly concludes that it is a settled law that where the negligence and breach of duty by the State are writ large and duty of care is found to be specifically of the public authorities, the maxim res ipsa loquitur shall apply. When the State is under a statutory duty of care and fails to fulfil such duty, the presumption of liability without proof will also attract," the Court said.
The Court first explored the High Court's authority to grant compensation in negligence cases, particularly those involving violations of human rights and fundamental rights that constitute a constitutional tort. The Court referenced established legal principles indicating that writ courts can direct compensation for breaches of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It cited various precedents, including the case of Shagufta Ali vs. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors (2024), which established that when state authorities are directly responsible for an incident, the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' applies. This principle presumes negligence on the part of the state authorities, particularly when the cause and fact of death are uncontested. The Court noted that when public authorities fail to meet their statutory duties, this presumption of liability becomes applicable.
The Single-Judge underscored that the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, particularly Section 348, imposes a clear obligation on the MCD's Commissioner to ensure that buildings in a dilapidated state are either demolished, secured, or repaired to prevent risks to the public. This section signifies an unequivocal duty on the MCD to maintain the safety of its properties.
The Court reviewed the MCD's claims that a dispute from 1995-96 had led to the abandonment of construction work by the contractor, and that the quarters had been subject to pilferage by miscreants. However, the Court criticized the MCD for failing to provide evidence of actions taken against these issues or steps undertaken to demolish hazardous portions of the property. It highlighted that the MCD did not demonstrate adequate maintenance of its quarters.
The Court also observed that the MCD had prior knowledge of the dangerous and dilapidated condition of its property and had neglected its duty to ensure safety. "It is thus vividly observed that the respondent-MCD had the prior knowledge of its quarters being in a dangerous and dilapidated condition. Thus, the fact that the respondent-MCD was negligent in maintaining the safe condition of the said quarters is manifestly evident from the record," it noted.
In its ruling, the Court emphasized that the MCD's responsibility for maintaining its property to avoid endangering lives was evident. The negligence of the MCD was so apparent that the case fell squarely within the bounds of 'res ipsa loquitur'. As a result, the Court directed the MCD to pay Rs. 10 lakh in compensation to the victim's family, along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of the child's death.
"...the respondent-MCD is directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs 10,00,000/- alongwith simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of death i.e., 27.07.2007 till the date of realisation, as compensation to the petitioners for the death of their son within a period of three months from the passing of this judgment. Any failure to comply with the aforesaid direction shall result in the petitioners being entitled for payment of additional simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum, accruing from today," the Court said in its order dated September 12.
Cause Title: Munna v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC: 7060]
Appearance:-
Petitioner: Advocate J. S. Kanwar
Respondent: Advocate Kumar Rajesh Singh (Standing Counsel for MCD)
Click here to read/download the Judgment