This judgment affirms the entitlement to compensation for death due to negligence under Article 226, establishing State liability for safety in public premises and applicability of res ipsa loquitur.

JUDGMENT :

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.

In the instant writ petition, the petitioners claim compensation amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of the tragic death of their minor son, namely Master Sonu (hereinafter “deceased”) , aged about seventeen years, who died due to the alleged negligence of the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter “respondent - MCD ”).

2. The facts of the present case exhibit that on 27.07.2007, at around 7:20 PM, when the deceased was returning to his home, a big slab/lantern fell on him from a quarter owned by the respondent- MCD. The deceased was then taken to the G.T.B. Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi, whereby, it was found that he had already succumbed to his injuries. The information of the said incident was then given to the Police vide DD No. 18-A at Police Station, Nand Nagri, Delhi. Subsequently, after conducting the post-mortem on the following day, the body of the deceased was handed over to the petitioners. Thereafter, the last rites were performed by the petitioners on the even date.

3. Mr. J.S. Kanwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the flat, from where the slab/lantern fell, is owned by the respondent-MCD. He further submitted that the quarter was not properly maintained by the respondent-MCD which tantamount to a clear dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent- MCD. According to the learned counsel, the death had occurred on account of gross negligence of the respondent-MCD as it had failed to deploy necessary security personnel at the said flats and had not carried out the required upkeep, resulting in the aforesaid incident.

4. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said quarters were in a dangerous condition and said fact was also in the knowledge of the respondent-MCD. He further avers that there was no watchman, fencing or signboard in place which could warn the passersby from the underlying threat due to the dilapidated state of the construction which led to the incident. He contends that it was obligatory upon the respondent-MCD to take all the precautionary measures necessary to protect the life of general public but unfortunately, on account of its failure to perform the said duty, an incident causing the loss of life has occurred. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners are entitled for compensation.

5. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Shri Chand v. Chief Secretary, NCT of Delhi and Ors. , [2004 SCC OnLine Del 337] , Nagrik Sangharsh Samiti and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. , [2010 SCC OnLine Del 1351] Subramanium and Anr v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Ors. and , [2013 SCC OnLine Del 2363] to substantiate his arguments.

6. Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, learned standing counsel who appears for the respondent-MCD, vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions. While drawing strength from the counter affidavit which has been placed on record, he submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there was no lapse on part o