Madras High Court

M.Suriya vs The Chief Secretary on 7 December, 2021

                                                                            WP No.34818 of 2014

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 07-12-2021

                                                      CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                 WP No.34818 of 2014
                                                        And
                                                  MP No.1 of 2015


                     1.M.Suriya
                     2.M.Nitheswaran
                     3.Selvi
                     4.Palani                                  ..      Petitioners

                                                         vs.

                     1.The Chief Secretary,
                       State of Tamil Nadu,
                       Secretariat,
                       Chennai.
                     (R-1 deleted as per order of Court
                      dated 05.01.2015 made in WP No.34818 of 2014)

                     2.The Commissioner,
                       Corporation of Chennai,
                       Rippon Building,
                       Chennai.

                     3.The Commissioner of Police,
                       (Traffic and Maintenance Wing),
                       Veppery,
                       Chennai.

                     1/16


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 WP No.34818 of 2014

                     4.The Collector,
                       Office of Collectorate,
                       Singaravelan Maligai,
                       Chennai.                                  ..         Respondents

                                  Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
                     respondents to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as
                     compensation to the petitioner for the death of the first petitioner's husband
                     Mathialagan.


                                  For Petitioners               : Mr.M.A.R.Pragash

                                  For Respondent-1               : Deleted as per order of Court
                                                                    dated 05.01.2015.

                                  For Respondent-2               : No Appearance

                                  For Respondents-3 and 4        : Mr.M.Rajendiran,
                                                                    Additional Government
                     Pleader.


                                                        ORDER

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the

respondents to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as

compensation to the petitioners for the death of the first petitioner's husband

Mathialagan.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.34818 of 2014

2. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased Mathialagan

and the second petitioner is the son, the third and fourth petitioners are

deceased parents. On 12.12.2013 at about 10.00 A.M., when the husband of

the first petitioner was driving a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 09

BM 9544 along with his friend Mr.Kumar on their return from Sivavishnu

temple at South Usman Road, T.Nagar, after worshipping, to his house. Due

to heavy blow of wind, the iron barricade in the middle of the road fell and

stabbed on stomach of the husband of the first petitioner and the deceased

got severe wound in the liver and subsequently he died.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the

negligence committed by the Authorities in placing such iron barricades on

the middle of the road, more specifically, during heavy wind blow, caused

the death of the husband of the first petitioner and therefore, the State is

liable to pay compensation. But it was the negligence on the part of the

Police Authorities, who were on duty and they have never made any attempt

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.34818 of 2014

to remove the iron barricades placed on the middle of the road and therefore,

the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

4. The deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and on

account of the sudden death of the husband of the first petitioner, the family

was in penurious circumstances and they are not in a position to lead the

livelihood. Thus, the petitioners are constrained to move the present writ

petition.

5. The counter filed by the respondents reveals that the iron

barricade was kept on the middle of the road. However, the respondents

denied by stating that the two wheeler riders have to ride the two wheelers

only at the left but while riding the two wheeler, the deceased ride the two

wheeler in the centre portion of the road and committed the negligence and

rash riding, the deceased fell himself along with the two wheeler on the road

and hit the barricade placed on the middle of the road.

6. The respondents have stated that the iron barricades are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.34818 of 2014

made up with quality irons and 4-1/3 feet height, 6 feet length and 30 kgs of

weight. The said barricades are being used only to regulate the traffic and to

give free flow of traffic during peak hours. The Traffic Policemen are taking

appropriate action to maintain the barricades properly in the interest of

general public. Unfortunately, due to heavy wind, the barricade fell down in

the South Usman Road and at the same time, the deceased hit the barricade

and sustained injuries. Such a statement is self-contradictory in view of the

fact that during heavy wind blow, no one can expect the two wheeler to ride

the same towards left end of the road.

7. Therefore, this Court is of an opinion that the Authorities

have committed an act of negligence by not removing the iron barricades,

more specifically, when there was a heavy wind blow during the particular

point of time. The issues raised regarding death in public places due to

accidents are elaborately considered by this Court in WP No.8385 of 2015

etc. Batch of cases, and the the judgment was delivered on 29.10.2021,

wherein this court in paragraphs 13 to 23, observed as under:-

"13. The Executives of the State play the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.34818 of 2014

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.34818 of 2014

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.34818 of 2014

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.34818 of 2014

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.34818 of 2014

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.34818 of 2014

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.34818 of 2014

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.34818 of 2014

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.”

8. In respect of the judgment, cited supra, the Government has

to formulate a Scheme, which is yet to be formulated. The payment of

compensation/ex-gratia by the Government is not a bar for the victims to

claim insurance benefits or compensation under various other welfare

legislations in the manner known to law.

9. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are directed to

submit an application to the Competent Authority for grant of

compensation/ex-gratia, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such application, the claim of

the petitioners is to be considered based on the Scheme to be formulated and

a decision is to be taken, within a period of eight weeks from the date of

issuance of guidelines/policies by the Government.