Delhi HC Orders DDA To Pay ₹11 Lakh To Family Of Man Who Died In Balcony Collapse, Flags Structural Failures & Negligence In Maintenance
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay compensation of over Rs. 11 lakh to a woman and her minor sons, after her husband died after a balcony in their DDA flat collapsed 24 years ago. Justice Dharmesh Sharma pulled up the DDA for negligence and said that it had a "continuing obligation" to ensure the flat infrastructure's "durability and...
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay compensation of over Rs. 11 lakh to a woman and her minor sons, after her husband died after a balcony in their DDA flat collapsed 24 years ago.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma pulled up the DDA for negligence and said that it had a "continuing obligation" to ensure the flat infrastructure's "durability and longevity post-allotment".
“…it is clear that the DDA's negligence was the direct cause of the balcony collapse. There is no evidence to suggest that the deceased or his family members took any deliberate action that could have contributed to the seepage or dampness. On the contrary, it is probable that they used the balcony in the ordinary course of daily life,” the Court said.
It added that “latent construction defects”, which should have been timely addressed, were the root cause for the collapse and that DDA was responsible for rectifying the defects, either directly or through its agencies.
“Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the DDA is liable for latent structural defects consequent to the allotment of the residential flats, and therefore, it is liable to compensate the petitioners,” the Court said.
Justice Sharma was dealing with a plea filed by the wife and two minor sons seeking CBI enquiry for fixing responsibility on the officials and contractors involved in the construction of the flat which was situated in multi storied complex of 816 flats at Jhilmil Colony in 1986-88. As per the facts on July 20, 2000 the balcony of the petitioner wife's second-floor apartment collapsed, causing her husband to fall and suffer multiple injuries. Despite receiving the medical aid and timely treatment, the petitioner's husband succumbed to his injuries.
They sought Rs. 12 lakh compensation for the death of the father, alleging that DDA officials, in collusion with contractors, "committed fraud by using substandard construction" materials to misappropriate funds.
DDA argued that the responsibility for poor or no-maintenance lies with the owner/resident of the said property. The flats were constructed in the year 1986-87, and the DDA is not responsible for maintaining them after such a long period of time, it said. The area was de-notified in 1993, and all building activities, including maintenance were transferred to the MCD.
It further denied any rejection of the flats by its Quality Control Cell. The collapse was attributed to corrosion of the balcony's reinforcement, likely caused by water seepage through floor cracks, DDA's counsel said.
Justice Sharma said that DDA was accountable for the quality, strength, and lifespan of the balcony's superstructure and non-filing of the inspection report in the matter invited an adverse inference against the authority.
“It is evident, without requiring expert insight, that this issue exceeds simple seepage or dampness. An ordinary person cannot be expected to detect structural defects in their balcony. Notably, the Jhilmil DDA Flats Residents Association had repeatedly alerted the DDA to poor construction quality and substandard materials, but their concerns were consistently ignored,” the Court said.
The court further noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the deceased or his family members took any deliberate action that could have contributed to the seepage or dampness. On the contrary, it is probable that they used the balcony in the ordinary course of daily life.
It ordered: “…a writ of mandamus is issued directed the respondent DDA to pay a total compensation of Rs. 11,44,908 to the petitioners, in the ratio of 2:1:1 to the widow and the two children respectively, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present writ petition i.e., 11.01.2001 till realization within a period of six weeks from today.”
Title: SMT. PROMILA RASTOGI & ORS v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1241