The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi police to pay ₹75 lakh as compensation to the parents of a man, who is in vegetative state, after his motorcycle rammed into an unmanned and poorly lit police barricade five years ago.
Justice Navin Chawla said that the victim was entitled to damages for the negligence and failure of the Delhi police in discharging their duty. The court remarked that placing of barricades, though, may be for valid security reasons, also casts a duty on the police to ensure that they do not cause accidents due to their non-maintenance.
As per rules, all barricades must have necessary fluorescent paint as well as blinkers so that they are visible from a long distance. The rules also mandate that the barricades, under no circumstances, should be left unmanned. The alignment of the barricades should be done to ensure that the traffic halts for checking, but at the same time, is able to negotiate through them.
The High Court noted that chaining of such barricades was not permissible.
On December 5, 2015, Dheeraj Kumar (21) had gone to attend a marriage function in the vicinity of Paschim Vihar in Madipur Village. Around 5 a.m., a constable from the nearby police station informed the family that Mr. Kumar had met with an accident. He had suffered severe injuries on his body and head. He was discharged from the hospital while he was unconsciousness, on January 14, 2016. He has been in the same state since.
Meanwhile, an FIR was registered against Mr. Kumar by the police for rash and negligent driving. The Delhi police had stated that he seemed to have tried to slip through the gap in between the barricades and due to the speed at which his vehicle was travelling, he was unable to spot the chain linking the barricades.
The victims’s family disputed the above assertions and placed on record photographs of the site to show that the barricades were placed at a spot which was not well-lit and therefore, was not visible from afar.
The High Court came to the conclusion that “the chains tying the barricades could not be visible to a motorist from far”. “Merely because no helmet was shown to have been recovered from the site, cannot lead to a conclusion that petitioner no.1 [Mr. Kumar] was not wearing a helmet or was driving at a high speed or rashly,” the court added. With the police admitting that no policemen was present at the site to man the barricades at the time of the accident, The court also held that Mr. Kumar was entitled to claim of damages for the negligence and failure of the police to discharge their duty.