VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE prayer in this Writ Petition is for the grant of compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- owing to the untimely death of late Manoj Mathew owing to the negligent acts of the Respondents. The undisputed facts are that late manoj Mathew met with a fatal accident on 17. 6. 2002 at the I. I. T. Flyover, opposite Satnam Taxi Stand. He was rushed to the All India Institute of Medical sciences (AIIMS ). He was driving his motorcycle at the time when he encountered his death. He died within six hours of the accident. The Petition has been filed by his wife and son.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 is the Commissioner of Police. The only grievance against this Respondent pertains to the timely recording of the First information Report (FIR ). It now transpires that the criminal proceedings are underway against Shri Mudrax Parashar, owner of MSS Bijlee Bharti, having his office at Y 2a, Phase-II, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. No liability can be fastened on the said Respondent No. 3 or on the Government of National Capital territory of Delhi.

( 3 ) THE fatal and tragic accident was caused because a metal ladder used for repairing street lighting had moved or rolled down from the pavement to the main road itself resulting in the collision. The Report is that the motorcycle had on impact got entangled with the ladder. No person was manning the ladder at the relevant time. There can, therefore, be no dispute that the death was caused due to the collision with the said large metal ladder because of the negligence of the persons using it.

( 4 ) ON behalf of B. S. E. S. Rajdhani, Respondent No. 1, it is firstly contended by Mr. Dalal, learned counsel, that disputed questions of fact have arisen which preclude the entertainment of the present Writ Petition. In the first place, even if disputed question of fact do arise in a writ petition, the court is not automatically and absolutely debarred from adjudicating the claim. Referring the Petitioners to an alternative remedy is a matter of convenience and in the discretion of the Writ Court. However, in the present case, there are no disputed questions of fact. The death due to a collision with the metal ladder is not disputed. In paragraph 11 of the Petition it has been asseverated that B. S. E. S. Rajdhani ?appears to have taken away the offending ladder from the custody of the Police which on the basis of the FIR is case property under section 451 of the Crpc?. This specific allegation has not been denied in the counter Affidavit and must, therefore, be deemed to have been admitted for the present purposes. In any event it is not denied by BSES that the ladder was being used for repairing street lighting. This responsibility or duty is entirely that of BSES. The fact that the BSES had contracted this duty and responsibility to Shri Mudrax Parashar will not absolve it of its liability. If the liability is not direct, it is certainly vicarious in nature. Black s Law dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines vicarious liability as ?indirect legal responsibility; for example, the liability of an employer for the acts of an employee, or, a principal for torts and contracts of an agent. ? Public and civic authorities have on a rampant and ubiquitous scale adopted a cavalier and careless attitude in fulfilling their functions, totally oblivious of the hazards and dangers that are caused to the public by their negligent functioning.

( 5 ) IT is firmly entrenched in Indian jurisprudence that while exercising extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a Writ Court can order payment of compensation under public law without having to rigorously and definitively adjudicate on the negligence of a particular party. The principle of res ipsa loquitur has been applied in several judgments. This Latin phrase has been defined in Black s Law Dictionary in these words - ?the thing speaks for itself. Rebuttable presumption or inference that defendant was negligent, which ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document