JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs together with interest at 18% for the death of his son on 8th June, 2000. Petitioner-Shri Chand claims that his son-Ram Mohan, aged about 21 years, suffered a tragic death when a concrete slab from the water tank fell on his head. Petitioner’s son-Ram Mohan had gone to meet his relation-Shri Sujan Singh who resides at Flat No.30, UTSC Complex, PWD (E), Delhi-110092. It is stated that the deceased after taking meals with his relation was returning after drinking water from the tap near the water tank, when the concrete slab fell on him. The deceased was educated up to intermediate and was doing the job of a labourer earning Rs.60/- per day. Petitioner claims to be the only legal heir entitled to compensation. Affidavit from other LRs, namely, brothers and sisters of the deceased conveying their no objection to the grant of compensation to the petitioner father, have been filed and taken on record. The mother of the deceased is stated to have died about 15 years back. Hence the petitioner is the heir entitled to compensation.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1, namely, Chief Secretary, NCTD and respondent no.2-Chief Engineer, PWD Zone, NCTD. The writ petition is opposed as involving disputed questions of fact. It is claimed that the deceased was a trespasser in the UTSC complex, where entry of outsiders is prohibited. It is denied that he had come to meet Shri Sujan Singh, living in Flat no.30, UTSC Complex.
Allotment of flat to Sh.Sujan Singh is denied. It is claimed that entry to the non-public area comprising Pump House/ Overhead Tank is restricted by providing sign board. The respondents also claim that factum of death occurring due to fall of concrete slab from the overhead tank is not established. There was no eye witness. Besides there was no reason for the deceased to have gone to drink water from the tap near the overhead tank rather than drinking water, in the flat where he had gone to have meals. The version of the petitioner is, therefore, disputed.
3. As regards the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that remedy in the civil forum could be pursued, the question is no longer res-integra. The petition is squarely covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Darshan and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., to which the undersigned was a party, reported at 2000 ACJ 578. In Darshan and Ors. (Supra), the decisions of Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera V. State of Orissa, 1993 ACJ 787 (SC), Rudul Sah V. State of Bihar, , D.K.Basu V. State of West Bengal, as also decision of Supreme Court in P.A.Narayan V. Union of India, 1999 ACJ 374 were noticed and it was held that writ petition for grant of compensation in the case of breach of public duty by instrumentality of the State, resulting in the deprivation of life would be maintainable under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Darshan & Ors. (Supra) was a case of dereliction of duty in leaving the manhole uncovered. In view of the legal position as noted above, it is held that the writ petition for grant of compensation in the instant case, which is also dereliction of public duty, would be maintainable.
4. The objections sought to be raised by respondents claiming that the deceased was a trespasser and his presence near the overhead tank was illegal and unauthorised being in a restricted area, are wholly devoid of merit. It is not disputed that the Pump House and the overhead tank cater to and are part of the UTCS Complex housing many residential quarters. It is not as if the entry of visitors to the quarters in the colony was prohibited. It is vaguely claimed that the entry in the said area (i.e. non-public area) is restricted by warning sign board. But no further particulars as to the contents of the warning or photographs of the sign board have been furnished. Hence this submission does not merit consideration. The contention that deceased had no occasion to drink water from the tap near the overhead tank as he could have water at the flat of his relations, where he is claimed to have gone for his meals, is to say the least of a frivolous submissions and seeks to have a digression from the issue involved in the case.
5. The FIR report filed by Sujan Singh clearly states that the deceased was his wife’s nephew and had come along with his brother to meet him. It is stated that after taking meals, the deceased was returning when the big RCC slab fell from the water tank on the head of the deceased. He was rushed to Surya Nursing Home and was proclaimed dead. The post-mortem report as produced also records:-
“All injuries are ante-mortem caused by blunt force impact consistent with fall of heavy object on head.”
6. Based on the documents produced on record, the FIR, Post-mortem report, copy of notice given and the correspondence exchanged, it is clearly established that the deceased died as a result of the fall of concrete slab from the water tank. It was undoubtedly the duty of the respondents to maintain the water tank and other amenities in the buildings in a manner so as not to endanger the lives of the passers-by or those using the said facilities. This is clearly a case of res ipsa loquitur, where the negligence of the respondents in maintaining the facilities such as water tank are writ large on the record.
7. The respondents have chosen to make an averment in the counter affidavit that it is not established that death was caused due to the fall of concrete slap, seem to have admitted the same in a communication dated 7.8.2000 in reply to the representation received from the General Secretary, CPWD Workers Union. The said communication ironically stated as under:-
“Shahdra Branch has written letter regarding the demolition of the water tank in U.T.C.S. Complex which does not seem proper. It is correct that a slab of concrete fall on the head of an outsider who died. The water tank has not been declared dangerous so far by the competent officer. As a measure of caution outsiders are restrained from going surrounding the water tank. Water supply in the said tank has also been stopped. Helmets have been provided to all the workers working in that area to avoid any mis-happening.”
The above would show that respondents themselves have admitted the factum of death by fall of concrete slab.
8. Coming now to the question of compensation to be granted, the deceased in the present case is stated to be 21 years old with date of birth as 15.7.1978 and working as a labourer earning around Rs.1800/- per month. The petitioner claims that being a bachelor deceased used to pay Rs.1000/- to the petitioner per month. Petitioners have enclosed copies of certificates showing passing of the Intermediate Examination. Copy of call letter received for recruitment in Army has also been produced. This is being noticed for the purpose of assessing the potential for future earnings. Petitioner’s sons and daughters who are independent have filed affidavits stating that they have no objection to the compensation for the death of the deceased being paid to the petitioner.
9. For determining just compensation in this case the factor to be considered is the age of the petitioner being 60 years which would limit the years of dependency. As per petitioner’s own averments he was receiving Rs.1000/- per month, while the deceased was working as labour earning around Rs.1800/- per month. Keeping in mind the judicial principles enunciated in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others reported as 1994 ACJ 1 and Lata Wadhwa and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. , the annual dependency works out to Rs.12000/-. Considering the age of the deceased the multiplier of 10 years could be applied. Dependency can be calculated for 10 years considering the age of the petitioner and keeping in view the potential for future growth in income, as evidenced by call letter from Army Authorities. The just compensation to be awarded is determined at Rs.1,50,000/-. The compensation is limited on account of years of dependency of the petitioner.
Accordingly, I direct payment of the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to be made to the petitioner within 60 days from today failing which interest at the rate of 9% p.a. would be payable from the date of petition. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.