Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 1481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Dheeraj Kumar and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
WP (C) 10779/2016
Decided On: 18-05-2020
For the Appellant : Pankaj Vivek, Bidyarani and Harshit Chopra, Advs.
For the Respondent: Rajendra Sahu, SGC, Gautam Narayan, ASC, Shivani Vij, Dacchita Shahi, Karan Seth, Advs. and Sumit Dhankhar, SI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of care and strict liability of the respondent no. 2 in maintaining barricades as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Standing Order No. 329/2007, leading to the entitlement to compensation under public law.
Headnote:
Medical Expenses - Road Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Standing Order No. 329/2007 - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 129, and Standing Order No. 329/2007, which mandates the maintenance and visibility of barricades. The court also referred to various legal principles and precedents related to negligence, duty of care, and compensation claims in case of accidents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compensation for medical expenses, loss of income, and pain and suffering due to a road accident involving the petitioner no. 1. The respondent no. 2 alleged contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner no. 1.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent no. 2 failed to maintain the barricades as per the Standing Order, leading to the accident. It held the respondent no. 2 liable for negligence and awarded compensation to the petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved contributory negligence, duty of care in maintaining barricades, and the entitlement to compensation under public law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of negligence, duty of care, and strict liability, emphasizing the duty of the respondent no. 2 to ensure the visibility and maintenance of barricades. It also relied on precedents to establish the entitlement to compensation in case of breach of public duty.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent no. 2 to pay a total compensation of Rs. 75 lacs to the petitioners, with specific instructions for the distribution and investment of the amount.
Navin Chawla, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for a direction to the respondents to compensate the petitioners towards refund of medical expenses, loss of income/dependency, loss of prospects, continuing future needs as also for the pain and suffering suffered due to the accident of the petitioner no. 1.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1, aged about 21 years, was pursuing his studies in B.Sc. Hons. (Electrical Engg.) from Delhi University.
3. On 05.12.2015, he had gone to attend a marriage function in the vicinity of Paschim Vihar, Village Madipur. At around 1.30 A.M. on 06.12.2015, he telephoned to say that he was about to leave the venue of the marriage function and would reach home by 2.30 A.M. or 3.00 A.M.
4. Around 5.00 A.M., a Police Constable from the nearby Police Station informed the petitioner no. 2 that his son, petitioner no. 1, had suffered a road accident and was admitted to the Safdarjung Hospital.
5. The petitioner no. 2 later learnt that initially the petitioner no. 1 was taken to the Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, where the Medico-Legal Certificate was prepared and was thereafter shifted to the Safdarjung Hospital. He had suffered enormous injuries on his body and head. It is further asserted that the petitioner no. 1 had suffered a haematoma (i.e. an internal injury in the brain) and his skull was operated to remove the haematoma and to relieve the intra-cranial pressure. The surgery termed as 'fronto-temporo-parietal decompressive craniotomy' was performed and a portion of the skull bone was removed and the free bone flap was kept in the abdominal wall. As the petitioner no. 1 was facing difficulty in respiration, tracheostomy was performed for keeping him on a ventilator.
6. The petitioner no. 1 was discharged from the hospital in a state of unconsciousness on 14.01.2016. The Discharge Summary Record stated that the petitioner no. 1 was in a state of 'altered sensorium, eye opening to pain, not opening to commands'. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 continues to remain in the same state.
7. Curiously, an FIR bearing No. 1263/15 was registered against the petitioner no. 1 by respondent no. 2 under Sections 279 and 337, IPC for rash and negligent driving.
8. It is not disputed that the petitioner no. 1 had suffered an accident after colliding with the barricades that were placed by the respondent no. 2 at the Road no. 66, near Dhanwantri Ayurvedic Hospital, North Avenue Road, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026. It is further not disputed that these barricades were chained together so as to cordon off the road/street completely.
9. The respondent no. 2, however, asserts that these barricades were placed in a well-illuminated area and were visible from a considerable distance. It has been asserted by the respondent no. 2, that the accident appears to have taken place as the petitioner no. 1 was speeding and was unable to brake in time to avoid colliding with the barricades. It is further asserted that the petitioner no. 1 seems to have tried to slip through the gap in between the barriers and owing to the speed at which the vehicle was travelling, he was unable to spot the chain linking the barricades. It is further asserted that as no helmet or any protective gear of any sort was found at the site of the accident, the petitioner no. 1 was in violation of the provisions of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which mandates every person driving or riding a motorcycle to wear protective headgear conforming to the standards of the Bureau of Indian Standards. It is asserted that in the above manner, the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the petitioner no. 1.
10. The petitioners dispute the above assertions and have placed on record photographs of the site to show that the barricades were placed at a spot which was not well illuminated and therefore, could not be visible from afar. It is further asserted that the petitioner no. 1 was wearin
