The main legal point established in the judgment is the differentiation between civil and criminal negligence, emphasizing the entitlement of the claimants to seek further compensation despite receiving compensation from another party.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.

1. This appeal impugns the order dated 29.10.2018 dismissing their writ petition (W.P.(C) bearing no.2507/2014) in which they had claimed damages and compensation for the drowning of their 12 year old son, in a water filled ditch dug-up by R-2 for work being carried out for R-1. The appellants had claimed Rs.15,00,000/- on the methodology adopted for award of compensation in motor-vehicular accidents claims. The appellants pleaded that they were residing at Jhuggi no.107, Street No.9, Chanderpuri, Kailash Nagar, Delhi- 110031 and Faizan (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was one of their children. There was a vacant land in between Pilli Mitti Railway line and Metro line (hereinafter referred to as "the site") which was used by the children of the locality as a playground.

2. The respondent no.1 engaged the respondent no.2 to dig up a rainy well at the site. The appellants also came to know through concerned J.E., Railway, Shakur Basti, Rohtak Road, Delhi that the construction of the well was assigned to the respondent no.2. The digging work was continued for many days and the entire area had become slippery due to filling up of water in the pit/trench. The officials of the respondents did not take due precautions while digging up the said well/pit/trench. In particular respondent no.2 neither deputed any safety guard nor secured the place by a fence to ward-off an innocent person or animal from straying towards it and/or suffering any harm or injury. Children of the locality used to play on the said land. The deceased child while playing in the said area fell into the water-filled pit/trench, on 11.05.2013 and died. A FIR (bearing no.187/2013) was registered at P.S. Gandhi Nagar under sections 290/304A IPC wherein the respondent no.2 was implicated. The incident had happened due to negligence on part of the officials of the respondents. The appellants prayed that the respondents be directed to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- along with 12% interest from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

3. R-1 contends that it had allotted a contract (bearing no. 74-W/13/96/WA/SSB dated 24.02.2011) to respondent no. 2 for construction of a rainy well, where the alleged incident had taken place. FIR bearing no.187/2013 pertaining to the incident was registered under sections 290/304A IPC at P.S. Gandhi Nagar. Respondent no.2 was implicated and arrested. R-1 denies any negligence and liability. It says that the appellants have already received a compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- under an agreement with R-2. The writ petition is not maintainable.

3.1. The respondent no. 2, who was impleaded subsequently in terms of order dated 20.04.2015, in his counter affidavit stated that FIR bearing no.187/2013 was registered at P.S. Gandhi Nagar under sections 290/304A IPC on the allegations that the deceased had fallen in the temporary well which was filled with water at the site located between Peeli Mitti Railway line and Metro line. The alleged accident took place due to the negligence of the contractor who was carrying out the work at the site. The respondent no. 2 filed a Crl.M.C. bearing no. 2644/2015 before this court for quashing of FIR bearing no.187/2013 along with consequential proceedings which was allowed vide order dated 06.07.2015 and FIR bearing no. 187/2013 along with consequential proceedings was ordered to be quashed. R-2 says that it has already paid a compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- to the appellants on account of death of their minor son at the time of quashing of FIR bearing no.187/2013.

4. The "impugned order" held:

"1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be given to respondents to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest as compensation for the unfortunate incident whereby their minor son lost his life by falling in the pit/trench, which was dug in connection to a project undertaken by the respondents.

2. It is pointed out that