DDA Had Continuing Obligation To Maintain Flat Even After Decades: Delhi HC Orders Compensation For Death Due To Balcony Collapse
|The Delhi High Court granted compensation to a family whose member died after the balcony of a Delhi Development Authority (DDA) flat collapsed.
The Court observed that the authority had a continuing obligation to maintain the property even though some decades had elapsed since its construction.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition seeking an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation for fixation of responsibility of the erring officials and compensate the Petitioner for medical expenses, mental agony due to the demise of the Petitioner's husband and for the balcony's repair.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma, held, "The DDA had a continuing obligation to ensure the infrastructure's durability and longevity post-allotment. The facts of this case unequivocally demonstrate that latent construction defects, which should have been timely addressed, were the root cause. The DDA was responsible for rectifying these defects, either directly or through its agencies."
Advocate D.K. Rustagi appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Ashish Dhingra appeared for the Delhi Development Authority.
The Court was approached by the wife and sons of a deceased man who reside in the Jhilmil Colony of Delhi. In 2000, the balcony of their flat collapsed, causing the man to fall and suffer injuries which proved to be fatal. The surviving family sought Rs. 12 lakh as compensation alleging that the DDA officials had committed fraud by using substandard construction materials to misappropriate funds. An inspection team reportedly found that the complex's structure was not built according to the prescribed norms, yet the DDA proceeded with the flat allotments, the Court records.
The DDA, on the other hand, contended that the responsibility of the maintenance lied with the owner or resident of the property and since the flats were constructed around 1986, the DDA was not responsible to maintain after so long. On the Petitioner's flat, the DDA attributed the balcony's collapse to likely water seepage through floor cracks and said that other balconies in the building had remained intact.
The Court observed that the present issue exceeds simple seepage or dampness and that "an ordinary person cannot be expected to detect structural defects in their balcony." The Court further noted that an association of residents had repeatedly alerted the DDA about poor construction quality and substandard materials, but their concerns were consistently ignored.
Consequently, the Court issued a Writ of mandamus to DDA to pay a total compensation of Rs. 11,44,908 to the Petitioners, to be divided among the wife and two sons in a 2:1:1 within a period of six weeks.
Cause Title: Promila Rastogi v. Delhi Development Authority [2024:DHC:8773]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate D.K. Rustagi, Karan Malhotra and Jagesh Singh
Respondent: Advocate Ashish Dhingra