Court orders Delhi Jal Board to pay Rs 30 lakh after man dies in open ditch: Why ‘temporary barricades’ no longer enough

“The obligation to ensure that a hazardous excavation on a public road was adequately safeguarded, not merely by the placement of temporary barricades but by continuous supervision, adequate illumination, and prompt emergency response, rested squarely upon DJB,” the court said on May 29.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that facts and material on record speak for themselves and indicate a lack of duty of care and negligence on the part of DJB.

The order added that such incidents are not unforeseeable occurrences, but rather a consequence of administrative negligence and failure to implement basic safety measures mandated for public infrastructure works. It continued that the absence of adequate barricading, warning signs, illumination, supervision, and emergency response mechanisms reflects a disregard for public safety and human life. 

“DJB ought to have been well aware that such accidents can occur if a pit is dug on a road that is used by the public. Therefore, in such cases, the duty of the State and statutory bodies does not exhaust itself with the mere installation of barricades; it extends equally to vigilant supervision over hazardous sites and ensuring timely emergency response,” said Justice Kaurav.

‘Expensive litigation merely to secure basic financial relief’

• It is pertinent to note that, in the interregnum, there was an outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic across the globe, disrupting people’s lives to a great extent.
• The petitioners depended on the deceased for income. In this context, to expect them to necessarily approach the court immediately after his demise, amidst the pandemic, would not be required
• The court cannot turn a blind eye to the stark realities faced by the petitioners.
• Wherever the foundational facts surrounding the incident are not disputed, and wherever those facts, read together, admit of only one reasonable inference, namely, that the state or its instrumentality failed to discharge its duty of care, resulting in the deprivation of the life of a citizen, the writ court is not only empowered to grant compensation in the exercise of its power as a constitutional court.
• The loss of the sole breadwinner of a family, particularly where the dependents do not possess sufficient financial means or social support to sustain themselves, places such families in an extremely vulnerable and precarious condition, where even their day-to-day survival becomes uncertain.
• In such circumstances, the dependants are often left to navigate prolonged financial distress, educational disruption, emotional trauma, and social insecurity, all while simultaneously pursuing legal remedies for compensation.
• They ought not to be compelled to undertake prolonged and expensive litigation merely to secure basic financial relief arising out of incidents attributable to the negligence of public authorities.

‘Temporary barricades not adequately safeguarded’

• It is equally settled that any inter se dispute between the respondents or any other entity as to which of them bears primary liability shall not operate as a bar to the grant of relief to the petitioner.
• The petitioners, comprising an old lady, a widow, and three minor children, do not have any source of income since the demise of the sole breadwinner in their family.
• As per the data furnished by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in its report titled ‘Road Accidents in India’ 2023, 8,246 people were injured in the year 2023, whereas a further 3,904 persons were killed in the same year, as a result of road accidents due to ongoing road works/construction activity.
• These figures underscore the grave danger posed by unattended excavation sites, unbarricaded ditches, and incomplete repair works on public roads.
• The facts and material on record speak for themselves and indicate a lack of duty of care and negligence on the part of DJB. The maxim of res ipsa loquitur is squarely attracted.
• Once the facts established by the record raise a presumption of negligence, the burden of demonstrating that adequate care and precautions were taken shifts to DJB.
• The obligation to ensure that a hazardous excavation on a public road was adequately safeguarded, not merely by the placement of temporary barricades but by continuous supervision, adequate illumination, and prompt emergency response, rested squarely upon DJB.
• In the facts of the case at hand, the contractor here was engaged by, and was working under the authority of DJB. DJB cannot escape the consequences of negligence in the execution of work undertaken within its own authority merely by pointing to a contract of indemnity with its contractor.
• The petitioners are not privy to that contract, and their right to claim compensation from DJB cannot be made contingent upon its terms. Needless to state, DJB is at liberty to recover any amounts paid by it from the contractor in separate proceedings, if it is so entitled under any contract.

Case of fatal accident and legal battle for compensation

The plea filed by the legal heirs of the deceased is seeking compensation to the extent of Rs 50 lakh for the death of the deceased on account of alleged negligence attributable to the respondents. Petitioners include the wife of the deceased, two children, and the deceased’s mother.

The case set up by the petitioners is that, on the intervening night of 17/18 April 2019, the deceased was returning home from his place of employment on his motorcycle when he met with a fatal accident on Main Hiran Kudna Road, Dhichaun Kalan, Delhi.

According to the petitioners, the respondent, namely DJB, had undertaken pipeline repair work in the area and, for the said purpose, had dug a deep excavation/ditch immediately in front of its office premises.

It was further the case of the petitioners that, before his demise, the deceased informed his wife that while he was riding back from work during the late hours of the night, he was momentarily blinded by the headlights of a truck approaching from the opposite direction; as a result, he was unable to notice the open ditch and consequently fell into the same along with his motorcycle.

According to them, the circumstances leading to the accident clearly disclose gross negligence on the part of DJB in failing to secure the excavation site or provide any warning mechanisms for public safety.

According to the petitioners, the deceased was the sole breadwinner of their family, and owing to his death, the petitioners currently have no source of income. The deceased is stated to have been 37 years old at the time of the accident and had been working as ‘Field Boy’ with ‘M/s Airef Engineers Pvt Ltd ‘ and was drawing a salary of Rs 16,770 per month at the time of his demise.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Nitin Jain submitted that the stand taken by DJB is a hollow defence taken with the sole purpose of shifting it liability to a private party.

DJB’s stand

DJB, in its counter affidavit, has sought to distance itself from any liability and takes the stand that the aforesaid ditch had been dug by a third-party contractor who had been awarded a contract for improving the water supply network. According to DJB, any negligence, therefore, which may have led to the death of the incident, could only be attributed to the said contractor and not the respondents.

It was also stated that the contract with the third-party contractor provided that the contractor would indemnify the respondents against all claims arising out of the project. Therefore, the petitioner ought to claim compensation from the third-party contractor, and ought to have necessarily impleaded it as a respondent.