The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of strict liability in cases of negligence leading to injury or death, and the quantification of compensation based on established legal principles and international norms.

Vipin Sanghi, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, namely Sh. Santu Ram and his wife, Smt. Pushpa Devi, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to claim compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs from the respondents on account of the death of their son Master Sanjay Kumar, aged around 15 years, because of the alleged negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the respondents. The case of the petitioners is that on 10.01.2008 at around 4:15 p.m. their son, Master Sanjay Kumar, was playing cricket along with his friends in DDA Park, near BSF Camp, Sangam Vihar. There were a large number of cemented electric poles which were kept in the middle of the park by BSES in a disorderly manner. While playing cricket in the park, the cricket ball went underneath the electric cemented poles lying there and Master Sanjay Kumar went to retrieve the ball. When the boy was taking out the ball from amongst the poles stacked in a disorderly fashion, one of the poles fell over the head of the deceased which caused fatal injury to the deceased.

2. As the incident occurred, many persons gathered on the spot and some of them informed the police. The police then took the injured boy to Batra Hospital, where the doctors declared the boy as brought dead. The medico-legal report has also been filed by the petitioners which shows that the deceased was brought in a dead condition to the hospital at 4:45 p.m. on 10.01.2008.

3. The FIR of the incident was also recorded, being FIR No. 20/2008 in police station Sangam Vihar u/s 304A IPC against unknown persons. The postmortem has been conducted on the deceased boy and the cause of death is shown as - shock due to haemothorax, which could be possible by fall of electric pole on the body. The death certificate of the deceased has also been placed on record.

4. It is submitted by the petitioners that they are poor persons and are surviving by doing petty labour work. They further submit that their son was a good student and was having a bright future ahead. The petitioners have placed on record the certificate issued by the National Institute of Open Schooling to certify that the deceased had completed "C" level course of open basic education, which is equivalent to class VII/VIII of schooling.

5. The petitioners submit that they were having very high hopes from their son but due to his untimely death all their hopes and dreams have been shattered. They submit that the deceased was their only son, and his rise in life would have given a better status to the family both financially and socially. They have suffered great mental pain and agony and this loss cannot be compensated in terms of money.

6. The petitioners also submit that the respondent no. 4, i.e. SHO, P.S. Sangam Vihar has failed to investigate the matter and has not even recorded the statements of the eyewitnesses who were present at that time. They allege that police has deliberately not mentioned the name of the eyewitnesses in the FIR and it only shows their casual and careless attitude towards the matter. The petitioner no. 1 has also written a letter dated 12.06.2008 to the DCP (South) for directing the SHO Sangam Vihar to investigate the matter sincerely and record the statements of all the eyewitnesses.

7. The petitioners submit that the death of their child has been caused due to the negligence which can be attributed to the respondents. The cemented poles were kept in the middle of the park in a disorderly and negligent manner without any safety precaution, and even a slight push could make the poles roll down. The petitioners further submit that the poles were kept in a public park which was being freely used by the public at large.

8. The petitioners submit that State instrumentalities have failed to act with due care and it is a breach of public duty cast upon them by law. Consequently, fundamental rights of the petitioners son have been violated and they are entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the