Bombay High Court sets aside SHRC order directing BMC to pay ₹10 lakh compensation in a 2015 Mahim road accident case | File Photo
Mumbai, March 3: Observing that compensation cannot be awarded without establishing negligence through proper evidence, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) directing the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to a woman injured in a 2015 road accident, allegedly due to potholes, at Mahim.
A bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande held that the Commission “exceeded its jurisdiction” by attributing negligence to the civic body and awarding compensation despite the absence of supporting material on record.
Background of the case
The case arose from an accident on April 6, 2015, when complainant G. D’Souza and his wife Marilyn were travelling on a two-wheeler from Bandra to Dadar. Near Mahim Junction, the vehicle allegedly skidded, causing both riders to fall, with Marilyn suffering grievous head injuries that required prolonged treatment.
D’Souza moved the Human Rights Commission alleging that the accident occurred due to potholes and unsafe road conditions resulting from negligent maintenance by the BMC.
The police submitted a report before the SHRC stating that the vehicle “skidded” due to a pothole. However, the BMC contested this, stating that no construction or maintenance work was being done at the spot where the bike skidded. It relied on a site visit by a BMC officer and statements recorded of nearby shopkeepers.
Court’s observations
However, the SHRC accepted the complaint in January 2018 and directed the Municipal Commissioner to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation for violation of human rights.
Challenging the order, BMC counsel Yashodeep Deshmukh argued that the Commission’s powers under the Protection of Human Rights Act were limited to making recommendations and that liability could not be imposed without proof of negligence.
The court agreed, noting that the Commission is essentially a fact-finding body and “cannot assume the role of a constitutional court” empowered to grant compensation under public law remedies.
Examining reports submitted by the police and civic authorities, the bench found that neither conclusively established negligence by the Corporation. “We fail to see any material on the basis of which this inference is drawn,” the court observed, adding that compensation arising from tortious liability requires adjudication through evidence and trial.
Also Watch:
While acknowledging the seriousness of the victim’s injuries, the judges clarified that compensation “does not come as a grace or a bounty”, but must follow proof of fault.
The court, however, granted liberty to the victim to approach a civil court seeking damages by establishing negligence. The SHRC’s order dated January 19, 2018, was accordingly quashed and set aside.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
