Constitutional courts may award compensation under public law for death caused by negligence despite pending criminal proceedings.

The Petitioners, parents of a 10-year-old boy named Mohd. Nazim, sought compensation for his death on 27th September 2014.

The child died due to drowning after falling into an open, unguarded sewerage pit/well filled with dirty water at a construction site near Bhagirathi vihar Canal.

The site was part of an "Interceptor Sewer Project" managed by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB-Respondent 2), with Engineers India Limited (EIL-Respondent 6) acting as project consultant and M/s DSCL (Respondent 7) as the executing contractor.

Police registered FIR No. 975/2014 under Section 304A IPC, and a chargesheet was filed against site officials.

The respondents contended that the petition was barred by delay, raised disputed questions of fact, and argued that the site was secured by a boundary wall that was bypassed by the child.

The Court applied the principle of "Strict Liability" and the public law remedy for violation of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) as established in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd., which shifts the burden of proof to the defendant when the cause of the accident is within their exclusive knowledge.

Regarding maintainability against private bodies performing public functions, it followed Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani.

For the quantification of compensation, the Court applied the "Two-Part Formula" (standard compensation + loss of dependency) from Kamla Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the Consumer Price Index (CPI-IW) adjustment method to counter inflation.

The Court rejected the plea of delay, noting the petitioners’ low socio-economic status and the ongoing criminal proceedings which justified the timeline.

It held that material facts—the death, the location, and the respondents' control over the site—were undisputed, rendering the "disputed questions of fact" argument moot.

Applying res ipsa loquitur, the Court found that leaving a deep pit uncovered in an area accessible to the public, with only one security guard 250 meters away, constituted gross negligence.

The Court dismissed the defense of "contributory negligence" by the child, holding that the duty to secure a hazardous site is absolute, especially regarding children who may not perceive such dangers.

It further held the DJB vicariously liable for the failures of its consultants and contractors in a public welfare project.

It ordered Respondent 1 (GNCTD) and Respondent 2 (DJB) to pay a total compensation of ₹16,92,511.60 comprising ₹3,42,511.60 as indexed "standard compensation" and ₹13,50,000 for "pecuniary loss of dependency" based on a multiplier of 15.

Additionally, simple interest at 9% per annum was awarded from the date of filing the petition, and the question of inter-se liability/recovery between the respondents was left open for separate proceedings.