Case: Delhi Jal Board Vs. National Campaign Etc

negligence aspect has been dealt with under penal law already, the claim for compensation cannot but be left to be adjudicated by the civil law and thus the civil courts jurisdiction ought to have been invoked rather than by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition though advanced at the initial stage of the submissions but subsequently the same was not pressed and as such we need not detain ourselves on that score, excepting however recording that the law courts exist for the society and they have an obligation to meet the social aspirations of citizens since law courts must also respond to the needs of the people. In this context, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court: the first in line is the decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa wherein this Court relying upon the decision in Rudul Sah (Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar) decried the illegality and impropriety in awarding compensation in a proceeding in which the courts power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution stands invoked and thus observed that it was a clear case for award of compensation to the petitioner for custodial death of her son. It is undoubtedly true, however, that in the present context, there is no infringement of the States obligation, unless of course the State can also be termed to be a joint tortfeasor, but since the case of the parties stands restricted and without imparting any liability on the State, we do not deem it expedient to deal with the issue any further except noting the two decisions of this Court as above and without expression of any opinion in regard thereto.” On the question of quantum of damages, the Court made the following observations: “Be it placed on record that in assessing damages, all relevant materials should and ought always to be placed before the court so as to enable the court to come to a conclusion in the matter of affectation of pecuniary benefit by reason of the unfortunate death. Though mathematical nicety is not required but a rough and ready estimate can be had from the records claiming damages since award of damages cannot be had without any material evidence: whereas one party is to be compensated, the other party is to compensate and as such there must always be some materials available therefore. It is not a fanciful item of compensation but it is on legitimate expectation of loss of pecuniary benefits. In Grand Trunk Rly. Co. of Canada v. Jennings this well-accepted principle stands reiterated as below: “In assessing the damages, all circumstances which may be legitimately pleaded in diminution of the damages must be considered. It is not a mere guesswork neither is it the resultant effect of a compassionate attitude.” As noticed above, a large number of decisions were placed before this Court as regards the quantum of compensation varying between 50,000 to one lakh in regard to the unfortunate deaths of the young children. We do deem it fit to record that while judicial precedents undoubtedly have some relevance as regards the principles of law, but the quantum of assessment stands dependent on the fact situation of the matter before the court, than judicial precedents. As regards the quantum, no decision as such can be taken to be of binding precedent as such, since each case has to be dealt with on its own peculiar facts and thus compensation is also to be assessed on the basis thereof, though however, the same can act as a guide: placement in the society, financial status differs from person to person and as such assessment would also differ. The whole issue is to be judged on the basis of the fact situation of the matter concerned though however, not on mathematical nicety.” 29. Reference also deserves to be made to MCD v. Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others (2005) 9 SCC 586 whereby this Court entertained the appeal filed against the order passed by the Delhi High Court for payment of compensation to the families of those who died in Uphaar tragedy and directed the appellants to deposit Rs.3,01,40,000/- with a further direction that 50% of the amount shall be available for distribution to the claimants. 30. In view of the law laid down in the afore-mentioned judgments, the appellants challenge to the interim directions given by the High Court for payment of compensation to the families of the workers deserves to be rejected. However, that is not the end of the matter. We feel that the High Court should have taken cue from the judgment in Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (supra) and awarded compensation which could be treated as reasonable. Though, it is not possible to draw any parallel between the trauma suffered by a victim of rape and the family of a person who dies due to the negligence of others, but the High Court could have taken note of the fact that this Court had approved the award of compensation of Rs.10 lacs in 1998 to the victim of rape as also increase in the cost of living and done well to award compensation of atleast Rs.5 lacs to the families of those who died due to negligence of the public authority like the appellant who did not take effective measures for ensuring safety of the sewage workers. We may have remitted the case to the High Court for passing appropriate order for payment of enhanced compensation but keeping in view the fact that further delay would add to the miseries of the family of the victim, we deem it proper to exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution and direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3.29 lakhs to the family of the victim through Delhi High Court State Legal Services Committee. This would be in addition to Rs.1.71 lakhs already paid by the contractor.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]13. At the threshold, we deem it necessary to erase the impression and misgivings of some people that by entertaining petitions filed by social action groups/activists/workers and NGOs for espousing the cause of those who, on account of poverty, illiteracy and/or ignorance and similar other handicaps, cannot seek protection and vindication of their constitutional and/or legal rights and silently suffer due to actions and/or omissions of the State apparatus and/or agencies/instrumentalities of the State or even private individuals, the superior Courts exceed the unwritten boundaries of their jurisdictions. When the Constitution of India was adopted, the people of this country resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic.In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we do not have any slightest hesitation to reject the argument that by issuing the directions, the High Court has assumed the legislative power of the State. What the High Court has done is nothing except to ensure that those employed/engaged for doing work which is inherently hazardous and dangerous to life are provided with life saving equipments and the employer takes care of their safety and health. The State and its agencies/instrumentalities cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility to put in place effective mechanism for ensuring safety of the workers employed for maintaining and cleaning the sewage system. The human beings who are employed for doing the work in the sewers cannot be treated as mechanical robots, who may not be affected by poisonous gases in the manholes. The State and its agencies/instrumentalities or the contractors engaged by them are under a constitutional obligation to ensure the safety of the persons who are asked to undertake hazardous jobs. The argument of choice and contractual freedom is not available to the appellant and the like for contesting the issues raised by respondent No.1.In view of the law laid down in the afore-mentioned judgments, the appellants challenge to the interim directions given by the High Court for payment of compensation to the families of the workers deserves to be rejected. However, that is not the end of the matter. We feel that the High Court should have taken cue from the judgment in Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (supra) and awarded compensation which could be treated as reasonable. Though, it is not possible to draw any parallel between the trauma suffered by a victim of rape and the family of a person who dies due to the negligence of others, but the High Court could have taken note of the fact that this Court had approved the award of compensation of Rs.10 lacs in 1998 to the victim of rape as also increase in the cost of living and done well to award compensation of atleast Rs.5 lacs to the families of those who died due to negligence of the public authority like the appellant who did not take effective measures for ensuring safety of the sewage workers. We may have remitted the case to the High Court for passing appropriate order for payment of enhanced compensation but keeping in view the fact that further delay would add to the miseries of the family of the victim, we deem it proper to exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution and direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3.29 lakhs to the family of the victim through Delhi High Court State Legal Services Committee. This would be in addition to Rs.1.71 lakhs already paid by the contractor.