The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to pay a Rs 10 lakh compensation to the family of a 17-year-old youth who was crushed to death after a concrete block fell on him from a flat owned by the civic body.

The high court said the responsibility for proper maintenance of the premises rested upon the MCD which was duty bound to maintain it in such a way that it would not endanger the lives of passersby or individuals entering the space.

“It is conclusively established that the death of the deceased was caused due to the falling of the slab / lantern / block of concrete in the quarters owned by the MCD.

“Therefore, the responsibility t ensure that proper maintenance of the premises unequivocally rested upon the MCD, which is predominantly cast with a bounden duty to maintain and repair constructions in dangerous conditions in the territorial limits of Delhi,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.

The court directed the MCD to pay Rs 10 lakh to the family members of Sonu, who died in July 2007, when he was returning home and a concrete slab fell on him from a flat owned by the civic agency.

“Furthermore, the MCD also had a duty to maintain the premises in a manner that would not endanger the lives of passersby or individuals entering the premises,” the court said, adding that the negligence of MCD in failing to adequately maintain the premises is manifestly evident from the record.

The counsel for the family claimed that the quarters were in a "dangerous condition" about which the MCD was aware. The lawyer claimed there was no watchman, fencing or signboard in place which could warn the passersby about the underlying threat due to the dilapidated state of the construction which led to the incident.

It was claimed that the youth was studying in a government school in class 11th and that he was the captain of the school's junior kabaddi team and a member of the National Cadet Corps (NCC), indicating that had his life not been tragically cut short, he would have had a promising future.

The petition for compensation was opposed by the MCD's counsel who argued that there was no lapse on part of the civic body. The lawyer said there was no reason for the youth to enter the premises through a path he did when an alternative road quite wide was available to him to reach his home.