IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies in cases of State negligence, allowing for compensation claims without needing to prove fault.

JUDGMENT :

The instant petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking compensation for the untimely and tragic death of the petitioners” nine-year-old son, namely Master Justin/Joy (hereinafter referred as “deceased”), who fell into a pit and died allegedly due to the gross negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the official respondents.

2. Petitioner No.1, i.e., father of the deceased, is stated to be working in Sun City restaurant, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi as a Supervisor and petitioner No.2, i.e., mother of the deceased, is an Assistant Teacher in recognized St. Mother Teresa Public School, Burari, Delhi. The petitioners also have an eleven-year-old daughter, namely, Navya and both the children of the petitioners were studying in the same school where their mother was teaching.

3. On the fateful day i.e., 20.07.2016, the deceased and some other children were flying kites on the roof of their respective houses. While chasing a cut-off kite, the deceased was running towards the vacant ground owned by respondent No.1-Delhi Jal Board (hereinafter referred as “DJB”), when unfortunately, he slipped and fell down in a pit dug in the vacant land.

4. Petitioner No.2, after anxiously waiting for the deceased who failed to return home, began a search for him but his whereabouts could not be traced. She, therefore, made a call to petitioner No.1, informing him about their missing son. After petitioner No.1 reached home, both the petitioners made inquiries from the neighbours and during the said course, a few children of the locality informed them that the deceased was following the cut off kite towards the vacant land.

5. Thereafter, both the petitioners along with the neighbours rushed to the said ground and found a pit filled up with rainwater. One of the neighbours, namely Premchand, immediately jumped in the pit and found the body of the deceased lying in the same. The PCR van also reached the site and the deceased was taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, where he was declared as dead on arrival. Thereafter, a post-mortem was conducted and on the statement of petitioner No.1, FIR No. 351/2016 dated 22.07.2016, under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”) was registered against the officials of DJB. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the father of the deceased for performing the last rites and rituals.

6. Being aggrieved by the alleged negligence of the official respondents, the petitioners have knocked on the doors of this Court seeking compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of the tragic death of their son.

7. Ms. Aruna Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in the present case, the unfortunate incident which had occurred on 20.07.2016 was a result of gross negligence the official respondents in maintaining the vacant land. She contended that the facts of the case at hand evidently establish that the deceased died due to drowning after falling in a pit dug up at the vacant land owned by the official respondent. While relying upon the post-mortem report and the copy of the aforementioned FIR registered against DJB, she asserted that the said documents are adequate to establish the negligence of the respondents in the present case. She submitted that the post-mortem report clearly records the reason of death as ante-mortem to drowning and the copy of the FIR states that the case under Section 304A of IPC has been registered against the officials of DJB.

8. In addition, she states that neither DJB nor TATA Power Delhi Distribution Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “TPDDL”) has explicitly denied the very factum of the incident being death by drowning in an uncovered pit on the vacant land, as is necessary under Order VIII Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. She submitted that the only ground taken to controvert the stand of the petitioners is the inter se dispute between DJB and TPDDL with regard to