Latest News
Back
HC can grant relief based on strict liability as a resultant of breach of public duty
The Delhi High Court in Dheeraj Kumar and Another. v. Union of India and Others, through its Bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla, directed the respondent to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs. 75 Lakh for the negligence caused and also asserted that a claim of compensation with respect to a breach of public duty by any of the instrumentalities of the State that results in deprivation of life shall be maintainable under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner in the present case met with a road accident and was admitted to the hospital. He suffered immense injuries on his head and body. The petitioner had consequentially suffered from a hematoma, an internal injury in the brain, and in order to remove the same and relieve the intracranial pressure, his skull was operated. The surgery was known as ‘fronto-temporo-parietal decompressive craniotomy and the same was performed and removed a portion of the skull bone and instead, the free bone flap was inserted in the abdominal wall. Thereafter, he was discharged in an unconscious state. FIR was registered by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving.
The respondent asserted that the barricades were placed in such a way that they can be visible from a reasonable distance. Respondent elucidated that the petitioner tried to slip through the space between the barriers and due to high speed, he was unable to maintain the link. He did not wear a helmet or any protective gear and nothing can be found at the accident’s site. Therefore, the petitioner had violated the provisions of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which makes it compulsory for every person to wear protective headgear in accordance with the standards of the Bureau of Indian Standards while driving or riding a motorcycle. However, the petitioner has shown pictures that barricades were not placed in a well illuminated place and hence, not visible and also asserted that he was wearing the helmet at the time of the accident.
Therefore, the court directed the respondent to pay petitioner Rs 75 lakhs as compensation for the negligence.
