Delhi HC stays Rs 75 lakh payout to accident victim’s kin

NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court on Wednesday put on hold payment of Rs 75 lakh compensation to the family of a youth who rammed his bike into chained barricades and is currently in a vegetative state.
A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan stayed operation of the May 18 order of a single judge, who had awarded compensation and damages to the victim and held police liable for negligence and failure in discharge of its duty.
The division bench passed the order on an appeal filed by police, which submitted that the issues raised before the single judge were not maintainable in a writ petition as it involved questions of fact, and only a civil suit could be filed for seeking damages.
In its plea, police invoked a technical ground and argued that even the Supreme Court had held that in such cases where questions of fact were involved, only a civil suit was maintainable, and the judge could not have awarded damages.
The single judge in his decision had concluded that the barricades were neither properly lit nor adequate reflectors or blinkers were put on them to make them visible from a distance. It then awarded Rs 75 lakh compensation to the petitioner, Dheeraj Kumar, who was 21 at the time of the incident in December 2015. The accident took place on an early December morning in west Punjabi Nagar when Kumar and his father were returning home on a motorcycle and collided with police barricades that were chained together to cordon off a road/street completely.
In the plea, the father and the son sought compensation for refund of medical expenses, loss of income/dependency, loss of prospects, continuing future needs and for pain and suffering suffered due to the accident.
In the verdict, the single judge had noted that barricades were chained and did not allow vehicles to pass through, and such chains could not have been visible to the motorist from a distance.
Police, in its response, had contended that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of Kumar as he was speeding and was unable to apply the brakes in time to avoid collision. It maintained that the barricades were put in a well-lit area and were visible from a considerable distance. The motorist seemed to have tried to slip through the gap in between the barriers, and owing to the speed at which the vehicle was travelling, he was unable to spot the chain, it added.
Police also claimed that no helmet was found at the site, thus, Kumar was in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.