The principle of Res Ipsa Loquiter was applied to establish negligence and allow the writ petition for compensation.

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, inter alia, to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 26 lacs as compensation to the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are the parents of an unfortunate boy named Ajay Kumar, who died on 16.06.2007 when he was only about 10 years of age, due to the collapsing of the shed (chajja) of a house situated at DESU colony, Najafgarh.

3. The petitioner No. 1 claims to be an electrician, working with Delhi Transco Ltd., i.e. respondent No. 3. His family consisted of his wife (petitioner No. 2), two daughters, namely Nisha (17 years) and Neha (15 years), and one son Ajay Kumar (now deceased).

4. The case of the petitioners is that their son along with his friend Mohit Sharma were playing in the park of DESU colony, Najafgarh in the morning of 16.06.2007. Suddenly, at about 6:30 am, it started to rain and in order to protect themselves from the rain, both the children took shelter under the shed of House No. 1, Type-5 in DESU colony, Najafgarh. Suddenly the said shed collapsed and their son Ajay got buried under the debris that rained. One lady Smt. Kamlesh, who was doing her morning walk in the area rushed to the spot and picked up the boy Ajay from the debris. But the boy had already succumbed to the injuries.

5. The petitioners submit that the said house was constructed about 8-10 years back and was poorly maintained by the officials of respondent BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.. Petitioners also submits that the said flat was in a dilapidated condition, and due to this reason the shed (chajja) collapsed. The petitioners also complain that the flats are poorly maintained by respondent No. 1, despite huge funds being allocated for the maintenance of the colony.

6. The FIR of the incident was registered in P.S. Najafgarh vide FIR No. 558/2007 under section 304A/288 IPC against unknown officials responsible for the maintenance of the said building. The Post mortem of the deceased was done and the report is also filed with the petition, which shows the cause of the death as shock following blunt force, likely to occur in the manner as alleged i.e. on account of falling of the shed (chajja).

7. The petitioners claim that their only son was studying in Ring Midways Sr. Secondary Public School, Palam More, New Delhi in class V and was an extra-ordinary student. The petitioners were having very high hopes from their son. The petitioners have placed on record his certificates of merit issued to him on his standing first in the Art competition held in 2004 at Mt. St. Garjiya School. His report card for class III and class IV have also been filed, which show that he was a meritorious student.

8. The petitioners state that they were making all endeavors so that their son could become a software engineer some day in the hope that he will become the support system for their old age. They state that they have suffered immense mental pain and agony, due to the sudden demise of their only son.

9. The petitioners also state that the investigation in the said FIR has been going on very slowly and at a snail’s pace, and till date no arrest has been made by the police in the said case. They also seek that the police authorities complete the investigation expeditiously, and arrest the persons who were responsible for the said mishap. They also complain that the police officials are not discharging their duty effectively and they have also refused to give the site plan, photographs, inquest report and other documents to the petitioners.

10. Earlier, the petitioners had made Govt. of NCT of Delhi as respondent No. 1, which was deleted from array of respondents by this court vide order dated 09.08.2010, as no relief is claimed against them. The petitioners have also filed the amended memo of parties which arrays BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. as respondent No. 1, M/s Delhi Transco Ltd. as respondent No. 2