Madras High Court
Meenakshi Venkatathri vs The Commissioner on 29 October, 2021
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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 ... Petitioner
-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,
Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents
[R3 suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court
dated 29.10.2021 in W.P.No.8385 of 2014]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 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 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-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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
Additional Advocate General II
assisted by M/s.B.Manimekalai
W.P.No.35028 of 2012:
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
COMMON ORDER
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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 7 th 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
of the 5th respondent, the students had no control and were indulging in all
activities. The petitioner states that the son of the 6 th 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 5 th 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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 non-
consideration 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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
Speaking Order
To
1.The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013 & 35028 of 2012
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
mkn/Jeni
W.P.Nos.8385 of 2014,
30655 of 2013, 35028 of 2012
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
