High Court's division bench refuses to enhance ₹ 10 lakh compensation for death due to fall in open drain constructed by National Building Construction Corporation

Patna High Court's division bench comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy dismissed the apeal against the judgment of High Court's Justice Mohit Kumar Shah of September 21, 2023 awarding an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation for the death of the Saroj Devi's son who fell into an open drain in Kankarbagh, Patna. The open drain was being constructed by the National Building Construction Corporation (NBCC), the 5th respondent through a contractor. The other respondents are: the State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, the Commissioner, Patna Division and the District Magistrate, Patna. 

The division bench restrained itself from considering any enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the single judge or applying the multiplier method to award compensation. It observed that the single judge did not deal with the question as to whether the contractor was negligent or whether they took full care and precaution to ensure that no mishap occurs although this was one of the two questions framed by him not at all dealt with by the single judge. 

Relying on decisions of the Supreme Court, the single judge bench had awarded compensation in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is a remedy available in public law on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights, to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in a private law action based on tort. It also held that in cases where the relevant facts are not in dispute and there is established, acts and omissions of the respondent authorities on the face of the record, and there is a consequential deprivation of a fundamental right of the petitioner, the Writ Court can award monetary compensation to which end reliance was also placed on Article 21 of the Constitution of India; to hold that the negligent act of the 5th respondent; a State authority, resulted in deprivation of the life of a person. 

Drawing on judgment of the Supreme Court in Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2006 SC 1117, the division bench observed that ‘award of such compensation (by way of public law remedy) will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a Civil Court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Civil Procedure’ (sic). Hence, the appellant would be entitled to approach the Civil Court but subject, however, to laws of limitation and also requiring proper evidence adduced insofar as the negligence attributed to the respondent authority. The single judge bench had relied on relied on this judgment.

It made it clear that "the mere fact of a compensation having been awarded by the Writ Court would not enable a finding of negligence by the Civil Court, if approached." The judgement was authored by High Court's Chief Justice Chandran.