IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of care owed by the police, contributory negligence, and the relevance of the 2007 SOP in determining the breach of duty.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

Backdrop

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.05.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, awarded respondent no. 1 a compensation amounting to Rs.75 Lakhs on account of the negligence committed by the appellant/Govt. of NCT of Delhi [hereafter referred to as "Delhi Police"].

3. In the instant appeal, two other respondents, apart from respondent no. 1, have been arrayed as parties. Respondent no.2 is the father of respondent no.1, while respondent no.3 is the Union of India.

Prefatory facts

4. Briefly, the following facts need to be taken into consideration to adjudicate the appeal:

4.1. Respondent no.1 met with an accident in the early hours of 06.12.2015 when he returned from a marriage function held on 05.12.2015 in Paschim Vihar, Village Madipur.

4.2. Respondent no.1 was riding his motorcycle when he met with the accident at a location described as "Road no.66, near Dhanwantri Ayurvedic Hospital, North Avenue Road, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-26" [hereafter referred to as "the accident site"].

4.3. The record shows that the accident occurred because the Delhi Police had put up barricades, which were connected to an iron chain.

4.4. After perusing the record, the learned Single Judge awarded the compensation, as indicated hereinabove.

5. Before us, Mr Rishikesh Kumar, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the Delhi Police, has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the following grounds:

i. First, disputed questions of fact arise in the matter, and therefore, a writ action was not an appropriate remedy. Furthermore, the finding of negligence returned against the Delhi Police is based on surmises and conjectures. If a suit action had been filed, parties would have led evidence and been subjected to cross-examination before returning a finding of negligence.

ii. Second, respondent no.1 was guilty of contributory negligence as he was not wearing a crash helmet. In this regard, reference was made to Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

iii. Third, the assertion made on behalf of respondent no.1 that the accident site was poorly lit was incorrect. The witnesses, whose statements were recorded, indicated to the contrary.

iv. Fourth, the barricades with chains were placed on the internal roads of the area concerned. The Delhi Police follows the practice of positioning the Beat Constable/Police Personnel at a particular locality's main entry and exit points. This practice enables the police to monitor ingress and egress from a specific locality while the other entry and exit points are closed by setting up barricades. Therefore, clauses 6 and 10 of the Standing Order No.329/2007 dated 06.11.2007 [hereafter referred to as "the 2007 SOP"] would have no applicability in the instant case.

v. Fifth, the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is not based on evidence. The amount awarded is excessive.

Analysis and Reasons

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are not inclined to agree with the Delhi Police. The reason why we say so is the following.

6.1. It needs to be emphasised that the material facts obtaining in the matter, to which we would make reference hereafter, are not in dispute:

i) First, the date of the accident, which took place in the early hours of 06.12.2015.

ii) Second, the barricades at the accident site were chained together.

iii) Third, the police personnel did not attend the barricades.

7. Therefore, Mr Kumar's submission that there was disputation concerning questions of fact regarding the cause of the accident is completely untenable. The Delhi Police, as an instrumentality of the State, had a duty of care towards the respondent, which was breached in this case.

7.1. The immediate cause of the accident, qua which the learned Single Judge has returned a finding of fact, was the placement of chained barricades at the accident site. Furthermore, there is no invio