Full order of MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014, 30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 W.P.No.8385 of 2014: Meenakshi Venkatathri -vs- 1.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Periyar Salai, Payment of compensation/ex gratia by the Government is not a bar for the eligible victims to claim Insurance benefits and compensations under various other welfare legislations in the manner known to law. 24. With the above directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Sriram For R1 : Mr.V.Arun Additional Advocate General V assisted by Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.S.Silambanan

  • IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
    DATED : 29.10.2021
    CORAM
    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
    W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
    30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 W.P.No.8385 of 2014:
    Meenakshi Venkatathri
    -vs-
    1.The Commissioner,
    Municipal Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Periyar Salai, Chennai.
    2.State of Tamil Nadu,
    Represented by
    Principal Secretary to Government,
    Fort St. George,
    Chennai – 600 009.
    3.The Principal Secretary to Government,
    Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
    Government of Tamil Nadu,
    Fort St. George, … Petitioner
    Chennai – 600 009. … Respondents
    [R3 suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court dated 29.10.2021 in W.P.No.8385 of 2014] PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for her loss and to ensure that in the future no such dereliction of duty takes place for the protection and safety of the public under its jurisdiction.
    For Petitioner : M/s.Akila.R.S
    for M/s.Sudha Ramalingam
    For R1 : Mr.S.Silambanan
    Additional Advocate General II assisted by M/s.B.Manimekalai
    For R2 : Mr.V.Arun
    Additional Advocate General V assisted by Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate.
    W.P.No.30655 of 2013:
    1.V.Sankar
    2.Minor S.Mithun Raj
    3.Minor Tharun Raj
    [Minor sons 2 and 3 are represented by their father and natural guardian V.Shankar] … Petitioners
    -vs-
    1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its
    Secretary to Government,
    Municipal Administration and Water Supply Dept.,
    Secretariat,
    Chennai-600 009.
    2.The Commissioner,
    Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.
    3.The Principal Secretary to Government,
    Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
    Government of Tamil Nadu,
    Fort St. George,
    Chennai – 600 009. … Respondents
    [R3 suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court
    dated 29.10.2021 in W.P.No.30655 of 2013 ]
    Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the compensation for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioners together with the interest from the date of incident.
    For Petitioners : Mr.M.Sriram
    For R1 : Mr.V.Arun
    Additional Advocate General V assisted by Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate
    For R2 : Mr.S.Silambanan

    W.P.No.35028 of 2012: Additional Advocate General II assisted by M/s.B.Manimekalai
    A.Sardhar … Petitioner
    -vs-
    1.The Chief Secretary,
    State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009.
    2.The Secretary,
    Education Department,
    Fort St. George, Chennai – 600006.
    3.The Director,
    Directorate of School Education,
    Nungambakkam,
    Chennai – 600006.
    4.The Head Master,
    Kadathur Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kadathur, Dharmapuri District.
    5.T.Sadhasivam (Teacher)
    6.Murugan
    7.The Principal Secretary to Government,
    Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
    Government of Tamil Nadu,
    Fort St. George,
    Chennai – 600 009. … Respondents
    [R7 suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court dated 29.10.2021 in W.P.No.35028 of 2012 ]
    Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay compensation of Rs.12 Lakhs either jointly or separately to the petitioner’s family for the murder of the petitioner’s beloved son namely Kader Patcha by the 6th respondent’s son herein within his class room in the 4th respondent school, during school hours.
    For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kolandasamy
    For R1 to R4 : Mr.C.Kathiravan
    Government Advocate
    For R5 and R6 : No Appearance
    C O M M O N O R D E R
    (Through Video Conferencing)
    The writ petitions on hand have been instituted to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the loss of life of their family members, which occurred in public places, on account of negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the authorities.
    2.The facts in nutshell to be considered for the purpose of
    crystallizing the disputes in these writ petitions are as follows : W.P.No.8385 of 2014 :
    2.1.On 07.08.2013, the husband of the petitioner, Late Mr.Chelakarai, aged about 62 years, was returning from a pilgrimage from Tirupati by train along with two other friends. They got off at Perambur Railway Station and were walking on the footpath on the Perambur High Road, when the untoward incident took place. A dead Gulmohar tree suddenly fell on the head of the husband of the petitioner while they were walking. The husband of the petitioner sustained severe multiple injuries. Others sustained several minor injuries. The husband of the petitioner was taken to Ayesha Private Hospital at Kilpauk, wherein, he was admitted and an FIR was registered with K-1 Sembium Police Station. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died subsequently. The Post Mortem declared the cause of death as ‘Head Injuries’, clearly proving that the death occurred due to the falling of the tree.
    2.2.It is contended that the negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent Municipal Corporation resulted in falling of tree and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. The petitioner states that a legal notice was issued to the Corporation asking them to pay the compensation of Rs.31,00,000/-, however, there was no response from the authorities. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
    W.P.No.30655 of 2013 :
    2.3.On 17.05.2013, when the wife of the petitioner was travelling in a Scooter, returning from her School wherein she was employed as a Teacher, an old withered and ill-maintained Portia tree fell on the wife of the petitioner and she died. The petitioner states that the death of his wife was solely on account of the negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining the trees in the road margin in a proper condition. Thereafter, an FIR was registered on the file of Virugambakkam R-5 Police Station, Chennai. The petitioner states that his wife was aged about 34 years and was employed as a Teacher at the time of the accident and was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month. The petitioner claimed compensation for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- under various heads and sent a legal notice on 17.08.2013 to the respondents, however, there was no reply from the authorities. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
    W.P.No.35028 of 2012 :
    2.4.The petitioner states that his son was studying in 7th Std. in Kadathur Government Higher Secondary School and he was a day scholar. On 09.06.2008, after the petitioner’s son went back to School, after having lunch at home, the petitioner received a shocking news that his son died in the School and his body was taken to the nearby Government Hospital. The petitioner states that, on the said day, i.e., 09.06.2008, in the afternoon session of the School, at 3’o clock, the 5th respondent, who was in-charge of the physical education period, did not attend the class. Due to the absence of the 5th respondent, the students had no control and were indulging in all activities. The petitioner states that the son of the 6th respondent, a classmate of the son of the petitioner, had punched on the stomach of the petitioner’s son and he fell back and could not get up and subsequently became unconscious. Thereafter, he was taken to the Hospital, where he was declared as “Dead” by the Doctors. In this regard, an FIR was registered against the 6th respondent’s son. The petitioner, on enquiry, came to know that, in view of the absence of the 5th respondent, who was the Teacher-in-charge, the students have indulged in such activities and skipping of the period by the 5th respondent was the cause of death of his son. The petitioner states that the Government School failed to make any alternate arrangements or to confirm whether the Teacher is present in the class or to send a substitute Teacher for the particular period, therefore, the death of the petitioner’s son was solely on account of the negligence and mis-management of the Government School authorities. Thus, the
    petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition before this Court, claiming compensation.
    3.The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, contended that the Government is considering such cases and paying compensation on case to case basis. The authorities competent are verifying the records/documents in respect of individual cases and fixing compensation and paying, which all are made available in public domain.
    4.When applications are made, the families, who lost the valuable life of their dear and near of the family raise several objections regarding nonconsideration of their request for grant of compensation and insensitivity shown by the authorities in responding to their representations and the other disputes involved in this nature of issues.
    5.Considering the plight of the citizens in such circumstances and considering the fact that absolutely there is no fault on the part of the citizens in the matter of such accidents in public places and further, considering the fact that the compensations are being settled in an inconsistent and un-uniform manner, this Court thought fit that the Government should come out with a definite policy/guidelines for the purpose of payment of compensation/ex gratia payment to the families of the victims.
    6.In this regard, the learned Additional Advocate General, sent a letter dated 26.10.2021, addressed to the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, narrating the discussions and views expressed by this Court and also about the reference made to the policy decision existing in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in respect of death occurring on account of electrocution in public places.
    7.The learned Additional Advocate General submitted a copy of the letter, dated 28.10.2021, sent by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, wherein, it is conveyed that the State Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, vide G.O.(Ms).No.268, dated 18.08.2017, have issued orders for grant of relief of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund to the family of the persons, who lost their life for a variety of reasons such as natural calamities, communal clashes, accidents including explosive accidents, bomb blasts, decoit raids, attacks by wild animals, costly surgery and other medical treatments, factory/mill lockouts/lay off, public cause served by certain institution, etc. There is no specific mention about the persons, who died due to fall of trees in public places in the above said Government letter. If any accident occurred due to natural calamity within the Chennai District, the Collector, Chennai District is the competent authority to sanction the compensation, if eligible. The letter further reads by stating that, for the purpose of framing guidelines in this regard, wider consultation with the Revenue and Disaster
    Management Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Director of Municipal Administration and Commissioner of Town Panchayats have to be made and thus, requested some time for forming a consensus and arriving at a conclusion and framing guidelines for payment of compensation/ex gratia payment by the Government to the families of the victims.
    8.This Court is of the considered opinion that the facts prevailing in the public domain are that, there are wide range of discrimination in the matter of settlement of compensation to the families of the victims by the Government. One cannot brush aside the allegations in view of the fact that
    compensations are being paid by the Government on many such circumstances, but unfortunately, the compensations are quantified and settled in an inconsistent manner and based on several other extraneous and political considerations.
    9.This Court is of the strong opinion that, State, being the protector of all citizens, must ensure that, discrimination in settlement of ex gratia payment or compensation in similar circumstances are avoided. Any such discrimination will lead to unconstitutionality. No citizen can be discriminated in the matter of payment of compensation. No doubt, the compensation to be paid may differ from person to person based on variety of factors, however, such compensations are to be guided by schemes and policy. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for example, contemplates the method of calculating just compensation. Constitutional Courts have also issued guidelines in order to minimise the inconsistencies in determining the quantum of compensation in motor accident cases. Principles are derived.
    Various considerations are shown for the purpose of determining the quantum of compensation to be paid by the Insurance Companies and by the other companies.
    10.Question arises whether the principles adopted in motor accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act can be followed in cases where accidents occur in public places, as in the present case, a tree fell down and accident happened and a person died.
    11.It is needless to state that motor accident cases cannot be compared with the accidents happening due to the act of God or on some occasions, due to the negligence on the part of the public authorities in maintaining the public infrastructures. The scheme of insurance under the Motor Vehicles Act is entirely different and thus, such a scheme cannot be adopted for the purpose of grant of compensation/ex gratia payment in the cases of accidents occurring in public places due to falling of tree, lightning, fled and on account of natural calamities, etc., as pointed out by the Government in its letter. Thus, a different yardstick is required for the purpose of forming the guidelines.
    12.Citizens of our great nation are using the public infrastructures provided by the State. Footpaths, public toilets, markets, Roads, Elevators, etc., and many such public places are utilized by the citizens in general. Due to the act of God or due to the negligence of the public authorities in certain circumstances, if any accident occurs, and any person sustains injuries, no doubt, he must be compensated to some extent at least to meet out the emergency circumstances, as the State being a welfare State is duty bound to save the citizen, who is in distress on account of such accidents.
    13.The Executives of the State play the pivotal role in maintenance of infrastructures in public places. The State has to ensure that such public infrastructure facilities are maintained up to the standards, so as to avoid such accidents in public places resulting loss of life. Undoubtedly, the Executives are duty bound to conduct inspections periodically and ensure such accidents do not happen at any circumstances. However, beyond their control, sometimes it happens. Thus, in such circumstances, the welfare State must look into the grievances and pay compensation at least to support the family in such emergency circumstances in an uniform manner.
    14.Unfortunately, the facts prevailing in the public domain are disturbing the mind of this Court. Everyday, newspapers and media are informing the public in general that, in one case, a sum of Rs.1 Crore compensation is paid along with Government employment and in another case, a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs compensation is paid and in yet another case, a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs is paid and Rs.1 Lakh, so on and so forth. The basis for determination of quantum of compensation is absolutely unexplained and remains as mystery. The basis is not known to the public at large. It lacks transparency, which is required and a mandate under the Constitution. Similarly placed persons, who are victims of such public accidents, must be in a position to know, what is the actual compensation for which they are entitled to receive from the Government. It is as if the Executives can quantify the compensation at their own whims and fancies or based on certain extraneous considerations.
    15.This Court is of the considered opinion that political considerations or any other consideration cannot be a ground for determining the quantum of compensation. Citizens of our great nation are to be treated equally, uniformly, consistently, in the manner known to the
    Constitution of India. We, the people of India, resolved and formed the Constitution. Thus, the payment of ex gratia in similar circumstances must be paid in an uniform manner and any inconsistency or discrimination is undoubtedly unconstitutional and can never by approved.
    16.Thus, circumstances warrant formation of policy so as to consider the cases in an uniform manner for payment of compensation/ex gratia, across the State of Tamil Nadu, to the eligible victims.
    17.Constitutional principles of equality, social justice, reasonableness must be adhered to, while framing guidelines for the purpose of paying ex gratia payment/compensation to the victims in respect of accidents occurring in public places. However, the Government has to consider the quantum of compensation to be paid and it is the prerogative of the
    Government to decide the quantum of compensation to be paid.
    18.It is to be borne in mind that the Government is dealing with the tax payers’ money. While dealing with the tax payers’ money, every Government of the day is expected to perform the solemn functions in a transparent manner and to ensure that citizens are treated equally and without any discrimination. This being the basic principles to be kept in mind before forming the guidelines in such matters where ex gratia payments are announced for the accidents occurring in the public places, this Court is of an opinion that it is imminent to frame guidelines as expeditiously as possible, as a large number of cases are pending before the Government and before the Courts.
    19.Courts are also granting compensation for victims with reference to the accidents in public places. However, one cannot dispute that the Courts are determining the compensation in its own way based on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court is of the humble opinion that quantum of compensation if allowed to be determined in the absence of guidelines, no doubt, it will lead to discrimination and inconsistency, which is not desirable. In such circumstances, where issues relating to the accidents are disputed, then an enquiry is imminent. The petitioner’s negligence is to be considered in cases, where the accident itself is disputed. Thus, quantification of compensation in the writ petitions, no doubt, may lead to inconsistency and discrimination. Thus, Courts are expected to be cautious, while fixing compensation in the absence of guidelines. The judgments, wherein higher compensations are granted are relied upon and such inconsistency result in denial of just compensation or appropriate compensation to the victims. Just or reasonable compensation is the ‘subjective satisfaction’ and can never be the satisfaction of the High Court in a writ proceedings. Thus, Constitutional mandate requires, State should formulate guidelines for the purpose of payment of compensation/exgratia to the victims, who are falling under the particular category. Since many number of writ petitions are pending before the High Court, the State is duty bound to formulate the guidelines/policies as quickly as possible, so as to minimize the inconsistency or discrimination in the matter of payment of ex gratia/compensation to the victims of the accidents in public places.
    20.At this juncture, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners raised a ground that, in the event of approaching the competent Court of law for claiming compensation under other Statutes, the said applications will be rejected on the ground of delay. It is needless to state that the period of pendency of writ petition before High Court is to be taken into consideration, if any petition to condone the delay is filed by the applicants.
    21.Shri.Shiv Das Meena, I.A.S., Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, has responded to the views expressed by this Court and communicated the letter, dated 28.10.2021 to the learned Additional Advocate General-V of Tamil Nadu. The swift action taken by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, stands appreciated.
    22. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 009 is suo-motu impleaded as respondent R3 in all these writ petitions for the purpose of participating in the discussion to be conducted by the State for formulating guidelines.
    23. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:
    (1) The respondents are directed to formulate the guidelines and determine the quantum of compensation/ex gratia to the victims of accidents occurring in public places within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
    (2) The writ petitioners are directed to submit their respective applications to the competent authority for compensation/ex gratia within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the said applications are to be considered based on the guidelines to be formulated and the decision is to be taken within a period of eights weeks from the date of issuance of the guidelines/policies to be formulated by the respondents.
    (3) Payment of compensation/ex gratia by the
    Government is not a bar for the eligible victims to claim Insurance benefits and compensations under various other welfare legislations in the manner known to law.
    24. With the above directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
    No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

    29.10.2021
    mkn/Jeni
    Internet : Yes
    Index : Yes / No
    Speaking Order / Nonspeaking order
    To
    1.The Chief Secretary to Government,
    Government of Tamil Nadu,
    Secretariat,
    Chennai – 600 009.
    2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
    State of Tamil Nadu,
    Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
    3.The Principal Secretary to Government,
    Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
    Government of Tamil Nadu,
    Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
    4.The Secretary to Government,
    State of Tamil Nadu,
    Municipal Administration and Water Supply Dept.,
    Secretariat,
    Chennai-600 009.
    5.The Secretary,
    Education Department,
    Fort St. George, Chennai – 600006.
    6.The Commissioner,
    Municipal Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Periyar Salai, Chennai.
    7.The Director,
    Directorate of School Education,
    Nungambakkam,
    Chennai – 600006.
    8.The Head Master,
    Kadathur Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kadathur, Dharmapuri District.
    S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
    mkn/Jeni
    W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
    30655 of 2013, 35028 of 2012
    29.10.2021

  • You may also like...