Srinagar: Emphasizing that failure to secure hazardous public installations violates the right to life, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has awarded Rs six lakh compensation to a grieving father whose three minor children drowned in Chenani Hydel Project in 2008, against a claim of Rs 15 lakh.
The court, invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, held the authorities as being negligent, and noted that no amount can truly compensate for the irreparable loss suffered by the petitioner.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal allowed the writ petition filed by Arjun Kumar Sharma and directed the respondents, including the Power Development Department and district authorities, to pay ₹2 lakh each for the deaths of his three children, Anu Devi (eight), Preeti Devi (six), and Sunil (three), amounting to a total compensation of Rs 6 lakh within eight weeks.
On June 09, 2008, the unfortunate father’s children drowned in an unfenced forebay tank of the Chenani Hydel Project located in Village Pakhlai, Udhampur.
The petitioner father contended that the tank, which had steep plastered slopes and deep water, was left unsecured without proper fencing or warning signs, posing a serious risk to local residents.
According to the plea, the children had followed their parents to nearby agricultural fields and accidentally slipped into the water-body.
The petitioner attributed the deaths to negligence on part of the authorities responsible for maintaining the project, alleging that no adequate protective measures were in place despite the inherently dangerous nature of the structure.
The respondents, however, denied any negligence, claiming that the reservoir was surrounded by a parapet wall of about two feet and that the incident occurred due to lack of parental supervision.
Rejecting the official contentions, Justice Nargal held that the constitutional courts are empowered to grant compensation in cases where the fundamental right to life under Article 21 is violated due to State negligence.
The court relied on established legal principles, including the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, observing that the very occurrence of the incident pointed towards negligence.
Justice Nargal found that a two-foot parapet wall could not be considered an adequate safety measure for a hazardous water reservoir.
“Such minimal protection is wholly insufficient and reflects a lack of due care,” the court observed, adding that authorities managing dangerous installations owe a higher duty of care, especially in areas accessible to children.
The court also dismissed the argument of contributory negligence, noting that children of tender age cannot be expected to appreciate risks. It held that the responsibility to prevent such accidents squarely lies with the authorities, particularly when the presence of children in the area is foreseeable.
Highlighting broader concerns, the court observed that such incidents reflect systemic lapses in public safety and maintenance of hazardous infrastructure. It stressed that the State has a constitutional obligation not only to compensate victims but also to prevent such tragedies through proactive measures.
Accordingly, the court directed the respondents to ensure proper fencing, installation of warning signboards, and implementation of adequate safeguards around the forebay tank and similar hazardous installations.
It also asked the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory to take cognizance of the issue and formulate a comprehensive safety policy.
While acknowledging that no monetary compensation can truly offset the loss of young lives, the court stated that such relief serves as a means of providing solace to the bereaved family and upholding accountability for failure in public duty.
