DELHI HIGH COURT AWARDS Rs.16.92 LAKH TO PARENTS OF 10-YEAR-OLD WHO DROWNED, HOLDS CHILDREN CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO SPOT UNGUARDED MAN-MADE HAZARDS IN OPEN SPACES:

The Delhi High Court has awarded compensation of Rs 16,92,511.60, together with 9 percent simple interest from the date of filing of the writ petition, to the parents of a 10-year-old boy who drowned in 2014 after falling into an uncovered pit at a sewer construction site. The Court held that the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Jal Board are primarily liable to pay the amount, while leaving open their right to recover it from the private contractors and consultants who were executing the project. All objections raised by the respondents, including delay and laches, the existence of disputed questions of fact, and alleged contributory negligence on the part of the child, were rejected.

The judgment arose from a writ petition filed by the parents under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking compensation for the death of their son. The boy had fallen into a deep pit containing dirty water at the site of an interceptor sewer project along the Najafgarh, Supplementary and Shahdara drains, a project undertaken to reduce pollution in the Yamuna river. The work was being carried out by a contracting consortium under a tripartite agreement involving the Delhi Jal Board, Engineers India Limited as project management consultant, and the contractor. An FIR under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code had been registered, a chargesheet filed, and charges ultimately framed against the contractor. The petitioners contended that the site lacked basic safety measures: there was no adequate barricading, no warning signs, and only a single security guard posted some 250 metres away, while the pit itself had been left uncovered within an area under the exclusive control of the respondents.

The respondents argued that the petition, filed five years after the incident, was barred by delay and laches; that it involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction; that private parties such as the consultant and contractor were not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court; that individual engineers could not be held personally liable; that the site was private and the child had trespassed; and that the child was guilty of contributory negligence. The Court rejected each of these contentions. It noted that criminal proceedings arising from the same incident had continued until 2025 and that the petitioners, coming from a poor background, could not be faulted for the delay in approaching the High Court. On the merits, the Court found clear negligence in the absence of safety measures, the uncovered pit, and the lack of effective security. It held that public authorities and their contractors owe a higher duty of care to the public, especially to children, who are naturally attracted to open spaces and cannot be expected to recognise unguarded man-made dangers in the same way as adults. The standard of care expected from a ten-year-old is entirely different from that expected from an adult, and children of tender years cannot be imputed with contributory negligence.

Applying the two-part compensation methodology of standard compensation and pecuniary loss of dependency established in earlier decisions of the Court, standard compensation was computed at Rs 3,42,511.60 after adjustment for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, while pecuniary loss of dependency was fixed at Rs 13,50,000 on the basis of the father’s income and a multiplier of 15. The total award of Rs 16,92,511.60 was directed to be paid by the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Jal Board with interest at 9 percent simple interest from the date of filing of the petition. Their liberty to recover the amount from the other respondents in appropriate proceedings was expressly preserved. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.