New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the family of a 17-year-old youth who lost his life, while returning home, due to the fall of a slab on him from a flat owned by the civic agency in 2007.
Responsibility to ensure proper maintenance of premises in question unequivocally rested upon MCD: High Court
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while directing the civic agency to pay the compensation along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of death (July 27, 2007) till the date of realisation as compensation to the petitioners for the death of their son within a period of three months, said that the responsibility to ensure the proper maintenance of the premises in question unequivocally rested upon the MCD, which is predominantly cast with a bounden duty to maintain and repair constructions in dangerous conditions in the territorial limits of Delhi.
Quarter was not properly maintained by MCD which tantamount to a clear dereliction of duty on part of MCD: Family of deceased
The counsel representing the family submitted that the quarter was not properly maintained by the MCD which tantamount to a clear dereliction of duty on the part of the MCD and that the said quarters were in a dangerous condition and said fact was also in the knowledge of the MCD. He further submitted that the death had occurred on account of gross negligence of the MCD as it had failed to deploy necessary security personnel at the said flats and had not carried out the required upkeep, resulting in the incident.
MCD had a duty to maintain premises in a manner that would not endanger lives of passersby entering premises: High Court
“The respondent-MCD also had a duty to maintain the premises in a manner that would not endanger the lives of passersby or individuals entering the premises. The present case is thus squarely covered by the maxim res ipsa loquitur, as the negligence of the respondent-MCD in failing to adequately maintain the premises is manifestly evident from the record,” the High Court said.
The counsel representing the family further submitted that the deceased youth was 17-years-old at the time of the incident and was a student in Class 11 and was the captain of the school’s Junior Kabaddi Team and a cadet of the National Cadet Corps (NCC), indicating that had the deceased’s life not been tragically cut short, he would have had a promising future.
MCD opposed family’s petition for compensation
The counsel representing the civic agency opposed the plea of the family, asserting that there was no lapse on part of the MCD and that there was no reason for the deceased to enter the premises when an alternative road of approximately 100 meters was available to him to reach his home. The counsel further submitted that the deceased might have entered the quarter premises with a motive of theft and the death had occurred due the deceased’s own act and omission. The amount of compensation cannot be determined in this case and in the absence of their being proof of negligence by the MCD, the family is not entitled to any relief, the counsel added.
High Court rejected submissions of MCD
The High Court, however, rejected the submissions of the civic agency and said, “The respondent-MCD has not disputed the factum of death in its counter affidavit. Instead, it has merely made counter-allegations against the deceased, without presenting any supporting evidence. The respondent-MCD’s allegations that the deceased was a trespasser who entered the premises with malafide intent lacks merit. Undisputedly, the quarters/flats in question are owned by the respondent-MCD, yet it has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate its claim of maintaining the property adequately.”
