The main legal point established in the judgment is that road maintaining agencies are liable to pay compensation for accidents caused by negligence in road maintenance, and the court can award compensation under the public law doctrine for violation of fundamental rights.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. The petitioner-Ms. Madhu Kaur is mother of late Mr. Harpreet Singh, who expired in a road accident on 4th May, 2006. The petitioner claims that the said road accident in which she lost her son, aged about 22-24 years, was directly attributable to negligence of the respondents Government of NCT of Delhi and Municipal Corporation of Delhi as they had failed to maintain the road in front of base hospital near Balaji temple at Brar Square, Naraina, Delhi. It is stated that the deceased, who was driving a scooter at about 9:30 p.m. at night on 4th May, 2006 got imbalanced and died after hitting a pit (khada), which was more than 4 inches below the regular tarred surface of the main road. The petitioner claims compensation of Rs. 50 lacs from the respondents alleging negligence due to failure to maintain road and to display sign boards of caution in case the road had a pit or a khada, which required repairs.

2. On the question of accident and the death of the son of the petitioner, late Mr. Harpreet Singh, there is no dispute or doubt. The petitioner has filed on record copy of FIR No. 186 dated 5th May, 2006, lodged at Police Station Naraina in which it is mentioned that on 4th May, 2005 at about 9.55 p.m. information was received about an accident on the road proceeding from Brar Square to Naraina. On reaching the spot near Balaji Temple, adjacent to boundary of Base Hospital, a two wheeler scooter bearing No. DL 4S AB 6772 was found to have met with an accident and a young man, who was driving the scooter was found to be dead. Later on, the name of the deceased young man was identified as Mr. Harpreet Singh. The FIR records that no eye witness could be found at the spot but on general enquiry it was found that a pillion rider who was on the same scooter was also injured and was taken to a hospital by an unknown car owner whose car number could not be ascertained. It is further stated that at that stage one Mr. Manmeet Singh reached the accident site and stated that he had been informed that his brother late Sh. Harpreet Singh had met with an accident. The petitioner has also filed copy of the post mortem report issued by Safdarjung Hospital in which the cause of death has been mentioned as injuries of scalp, head and face with multiple fracture of the skull and facial bones.

3. Delhi Police pursuant to directions of this Court has filed status report dated 22nd August, 2007. It is mentioned in the status report that DD number 30A was lodged with the police station Naraina by the duty Constable of ESI Hospital that one Mr. Chandra Mohan, resident of B-910, Avantika, Sector-1, Rohini was admitted by one Mr. Amit Kumar in the said hospital. The said Mr. Chander Mohan died in the hospital. It is further stated that on further enquiry it was found that one Mr. Amit Sharma, resident of 175, Bharat Nagar, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, who was coming from Gurgaon had taken the injured Mr. Chander Mohan in his car to ESI hospital with one Mr. Nitin Kumar but no eye witness was found. The photographs taken at the spot of the deceased and the scooter have been also enclosed. The photographs do not show that the scooter or the deceased had been crushed under any vehicle. The photographs reveal scratches and dents on one side of the scooter which was facing the ground. The other side of the scooter virtually was unscratched and untouched.

4. ASI, Dharampal, who was the investigating officer in the present case has also filed his affidavit. In the said affidavit, he has reiterated the aforesaid facts as mentioned in the FIR and has stated that no eye witness of the accident was found. He has also stated that he had prepared a site plan on a separate paper. The site plan has been enclosed with the writ petition. In the said site plan, ASI, Dharampal Singh has specifically identified a pit on the road, which has been given mark 'B'. The said pit is before the place where the scooter was found. Obviously, when the FIR was writte