Delhi High Court · 2025-01-29
SMT ANJU GULLA & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY, GOVERMENT OF INDIA & ANR.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-966/2025 2025:DHC:686
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- SMT ANJU GULLA & ORS.
- Respondent
- UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY, GOVERMENT OF INDIA & ANR.
Judgment text excerpt
$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 29.01.2025 + W.P.(C) 966/2025 SMT ANJU GULLA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vikas, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY, GOVERMENT OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC, Mr. Vedansh Anand, GP, Mr. Amit Singh and Mr. Rajat Yadav, Advs. for UOI. Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Adv. for R-2/NHAI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to pay damages / compensation of Rs. 4.5 crores along with interest to the petitioners on account of the accidental death of one Shri Umesh Gulla on 15.07.2018 in a road accident, while driving a motorcycle on National Highway 44 on the Kanipala Over Bridge before Khanpur Kolian, Kurukshetra, Haryana. 2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Shri Umesh Gulla (decd.); petitioner no.1 is the wife and petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are the daughters. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 966/2025 Page 1 of 8 KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:05.02.2025 21:38:40 respondent no.1 is the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and respondent no.2 is the Chairman, National Highways Authority of India. 3. The petitioners have filed the present petition claiming damages / compensation on the basis that the accident which led to the death of Shri Umesh Gulla was caused due to the negligence of the respondents in maintaining the national highway pursuant to Section 16(1) National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, who appear on advance notice, object to the maintainability of the present petition. It is submitted that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the pr