JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

The petitioner prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs on account of death of her son-Himanshu Gupta.

2. Briefly summarized the facts of the present case are that Himanshu Gupta (since deceased son of the petitioner) aged about 26 years died of falling in a pit dug by respondents No.4 along laning project, on the intervening night of 11.06.2016 at about 9: 30 p.m. while going to Rajpura on his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-24-B-5370 in connection with some domestic work. The said accident occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Gandiyan, District Patiala and DDR No. 015 dated 12.06.2016 was registered in this regard. It has been submitted that Himanshu Gupta, since deceased, was working as Chief Chemist with M/s Jai Durga Cement Pvt. Ltd., situated at Industrial Growth Centre, SIDCO, Phase-1, Samba (Jammu & Kashmir) and was getting a salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the deceased was first admitted to A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura from where he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Rajpura. He succumbed to the injuries and his postmortem was conducted on 12.06.2016. A Death Certificate has also been attached as per which the cause of death was injury sustained in the aforesaid incident. It is averred that the work of widening of the road from Chandigarh to Patiala (NH-64) had been allotted to the respondent No.4- Centrodorstroy India Pvt. Ltd. by the National Highway Authority of India and was being executed under the supervision of the Executive Director, Public Works Department (PWD), Patiala. During the process of widening of the road, big deep trenches had been dug since September, 2015 even though a target completion date was of February, 2017. The aforesaid pits had been kept open and without any safety or precautionary measures. Even no signs boards of caution had been affixed for the safety of the passengers/travelers. It is further averred that the Chandigarh-Patiala Highway attracts a huge and diverse traffic and that there was no occasion why the mandatory safety measures ought not to have been installed once such pits were being dug along the side berms of the road itself and the motorists were being exposed to danger. The photographs showing the actual site and the depth of the pit being nearly 6 feet and length of more than 15 fee approx. has been appended as Annexure P-6. It also shows that the side of the road is pebbled and is earthen and thus exposing the two-wheelers to skid. Besides, there is an intersection at the point. Further photographs appended also show that no safety measures or diversion sign boards had been installed by the respondents despite them being obligated to take appropriate precautionary measures and that the pits in question have been dug at different places of along the road and only sand filled bags at some places at some distance have been put as a preventive measure. The same can be hardly considered as a safety or a preventive measure.

3. Written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 & 5 by way of affidavit of Vipan Bansal, Executive Engineer, Central Works Division PWD B & R, Patiala had been filed wherein the factual aspect is sought to be disputed, however, it is submitted that the project in question was under EPC (Engineering Procurement & Construction Project) as per which the safety of men and material is the sole responsibility of the Executing Agency. The ROW/Site had been handed over to