Delhi High Court Directs MCD To Pay ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Parents For Death Of Their Son Due To Its Negligence

A single bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found the MCD to be negligent in maintaining safe conditions of its premises and invoked the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' to place liability on the MCD.

The Court first discussed the scope of high court to provide compensation in negligence cases. It observed that it is a settled law that writ courts can direct payment of compensation in cases of violation of human rights and fundamental rights which amount to a Constitutional tort.

Referring to various cases, it observed that when right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated, individuals can resort to public law remedy for grant of compensation. It remarked “Thus, undeniably, in cases where Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated, resort to writ proceedings to remedy their plight by bringing into motion the wheels of public law, and consequently, monetary compensation may also be granted in appropriate cases.”

On the standard of proof required to grant compensation, it referred to the case of Shagufta Ali vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors, 2024, where the Delhi High Court had observed that when State authorities/ instrumentalities are directly and solely responsible for an incident, 'res ipsa loquitur' will come into play i.e., the presumption of negligence on part of the State authorities would arise. It was observed that when the cause and fact of death are undisputed, res ipsa loquitur can be invoked.

Referring to this case, the Court observed that when public authorities fail to fulfill their statutory duty, the presumption of liability would be attracted.

“Therefore, 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 then referred to Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which casts an obligation on the Commissioner of MCD to issue directions to the owners or occupiers of buildings in a dilapidated state, which poses a risk to occupants and passers-by, to demolish, secure, or repair such buildings within a specified timeframe. It observed that Section 348 indicates that there is an 'unequivocal duty' on part of MCD to maintain safety of the property which is in an impaired state.

Here, the Court took of MCD's statements that due a dispute in 1995-96, the contractor left the construction work unilaterally and also that the quarters was exposed to pilferage by miscreants. The Court stated that MCD did not show anything to prove that it took actions against the miscreants or for demolishing the dangerous portions of the quarters.

It noted that the MCD failed to provide any evidence to show that it maintained its quarters adequately.

“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 said.

The Court thus observed that the responsibility for maintenance of the quarters was on MCD. It stated that MCD had a duty to maintain its property so as to not endanger the lives of passersby or individuals entering the premises. It maintained its position that the case is covered by res ipsa loquitur, as the negligence of MCD was manifestly evident.

The Court thus directed MCD to pay a lump sum of Rs. 10 lakh along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of death of the deceased.