HC directs DDA to pay

The Delhi high court directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay ₹11.5 lakh, along with interest for over 23 years, in compensation to the family of a man who died in a sudden collapse of his apartment balcony in 2000, holding the agency’s negligence as the direct cause of the incident.
A bench of justice Dharmesh Sharma said that DDA had a continuing obligation to ensure the durability and longevity of the infrastructure after allotment.
“It is clear that the DDA’s negligence was the direct cause of the balcony collapse. In summary, the DDA had a continuing obligation to ensure the infrastructure’s durability and longevity post-allotment. The facts of this case unequivocally demonstrate that latent construction defects, which should have been timely addressed, were the root cause. The DDA was responsible for rectifying these defects, either directly or through its agencies,” the court said in verdict, issued on November 13.
The court directed the civic body to pay the compensation along with 6% interest from the date the petition was filed, in 2001, till now. The total compensation, along with interest, amounts to ₹27,93,576.
The court was responding to a plea filed by the man’s widow and his sons seeking ₹12 lakh compensation and a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to fix responsibility on officials and contractors involved in the construction of a multistoried complex of flats at Jhilmil Colony.
The family said it wrote to the DDA chair after the incident, but no official visited the site or investigated the sudden collapse. They alleged that DDA officials colluded with contractors and committed fraud by using substandard material to misappropriate funds. Further, they alleged that an inspection team reportedly found that the structure was not built according to the prescribed norms, but DDA proceeded with flat allotments. The petition contended that DDA could not shy away from its statutory obligation to conform to the requirement of providing construction having a minimum life span of 99 years.
DDA, represented by advocate Ashish Dhingra, attributed the collapse to the corrosion of the balcony’s reinforcement, likely due to water seepage through floor cracks, and denied any rejection of the flat by its quality control cell. The counsel said that its then chief engineer conducted an inspection after the incident in July 2000 and submitted a report, which stated that the balcony of the other houses was intact, and the incident might have taken place due to corrosion of the balcony’s reinforcement.
Taking a grim view of the inspection and DDA’s stand, the court said that the report was clearly “self-serving”, “one sided” and “complete eye wash” and the agency was accountable for the quality, strength and lifespan of the balcony’s superstructure. The court said that there was no evidence to suggest the deceased or the family members took any deliberate action that could have attributed the seepage or dampness on them.
“Merely because other balconies of the flats were found intact, does not imply that all was well with the superstructure of the balcony that had collapsed,” the court said.
The court added, “An ordinary person cannot be expected to detect structural defects in their balcony. Notably, Jhilmil DDA Flats Residents Association had repeatedly altered the DDA to poor construction quality and substandard materials, but their concerns were consistently ignored.”
The agency’s counsel said that the flats were constructed in 1986-87 and DDA was not responsible for maintaining them after such a long time. He also submitted that the area was de-notified in 1993 and all building activities, including maintenance, were transferred to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
Reprimanding DDA for its stand and terming the same as “feeble”, the court said, “I do not see how any blemish could be attributed to the MCD, when it was the DDA that constructed the flats in question.”