Delhi HC tells DJB to pay ₹22L for boy’s death in 2016

The Delhi high court has directed the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to pay ₹22 lakh as compensation to the parents of a nine-year-old boy who died after falling into a pit on its land in 2016.

A bench of justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated that DJB failed to perform its primary responsibility of maintaining safe conditions and taking due precautions in and around the said land.

The court also ordered an interest of 6% per annum on the amount from the date of the incident until realisation, bringing the total compensation to approximately ₹33.9 lakh.

“It was the primary responsibility of DJB to maintain safe conditions and take due precautions in and around the said land, which it failed to do,” the court said in its November 18 order, released later.

The incident occurred in July 2016, when the boy was flying kites and chased one onto a vacant DJB-owned plot. He fell into an open pit dug on the land. After the boy failed to return home, his parents found his body in the pit following inquiries with other children.

In their plea, the parents sought ₹30 lakh in compensation, contending that the incident had occurred due to gross negligence of DJB in maintaining a vacant tract of land.

DJB, represented by advocate Karunesh Tandon, contended that no negligence could be attributed to his clients as the land was under the possession of TATA Power Delhi Distribution Private Limited (TPDDL) at the time, and argued that TPDDL was responsible for the pit. DJB also claimed it had erected a boundary wall around the plot to prevent encroachment.

However, TPDDL, represented by advocate Manish Kumar Srivastava, submitted that the plea was not maintainable against his client as the deceased’s parents had not made any allegations against TPDDL nor averred any negligence on its part.

In its 28-page order, the court said that it was evident from the record that the demarcated map of the land indicates that the specific area of land, where the pit was dug up, was not earmarked to TPDDL, but remained under DJB’s possession. “Even if it is presumed that the land was earmarked to TPDDL, DJB cannot escape from its liability being the principal owner of the land,” it said.