Madras High Court
B.Krishnaveni vs The District Collector on 14 December, 2021
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No. 20742 of 2014
B.Krishnaveni ... Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector
Chennai District
Chennai. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Ceritiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
on the file of the respondent pertaining to the proceedings in
ref.Na.Ka.Mo. E-1/31215/2013 dated 11.04.2014 and quash the same and
consequently directing the respondent to pay the compensation to the
petitioner for the sudden death of her husband P.Balan.
***
For Petitioner : Mr. D.Bharathy
For Respondent : Mr. M.Rajendiran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The order of rejection dated 11.04.2014 declining the request of the
petitioner for grant of compensation is under challenge in the present Writ
Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
2. The husband of the petitioner late P.Balan was working in
Chennai Corporation as Assistant in Malaria Department and was retired
and was receiving pension in the residential area at Ooteri wherein the
petitioner's family was residing, a cannal work was done by PWD and
Chennai Corporation for the clean of Nalla Kallvay. The petitioner had
fallen into the hole and during the rainy season and died on 28.11.2012.
The petitioner states that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the
part of the public authorities. They had not taken effective steps to close
the hole while performing the works in that locality. Thus, the petitioner
submitted an application seeking compensation. The said application was
rejected on the ground that there is no provision under the scheme to grant
compensation. Therefore, the petitioner has chosen to file the present Writ
Petition.
3. This Court elaborately considered the scheme relating to grant
of compensation in respect of death in public places. In W.P.No. 8385 of
2014 etc., batch dated 29.10.2021 and the relevant paragraphs are
extracted hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
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.”
4. In view of the Judgments cited supra, the petitioner is at
liberty to submit a fresh application after formulating the scheme by the
Government and in the event of filing any such application, the case of the
petitioner has to be considered with reference to the terms and conditions
to be formulated and the said application shall not be rejected merely on
the ground of delay.
5. The factum relating to the accident is to be considered and
appropriate relief needs to be granted based on the terms and conditions
which is to be framed by the Government pursuant to the order dated
29.10.2021 passed in W.P.No. 8385 of 2014 etc., batch.
6. With the above said directions, this Writ Petition stands
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
disposed of. No costs.
14.12.2021
vsg
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non Speaking order
To
The District Collector
Chennai District
Chennai.
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
vsg
W.P.No. 20742 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20742 of 2014
14.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
