Madras High Court
K.Thirumurugan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 March, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.03.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.33945 of 2019
K.Thirumurugan ... petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
3. The Additional Director of Panchayat,
Office of the Collectorate,
Salem District, Salem.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Salem Revenue Division, Salem.
5. The Block Development Officer,
Puluthikottai Panchayat, Salem District.
... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance
of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order
dated 23.01.2023 in Na.Ka.No.1026/2021/A6 passed by the third
respondent/Additional Director of Panchayat, Salem and quash the same.
(Prayer suo motu amended vide order dated 20.02.2023 in
W.P.No.33945/2019)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For petitioner : Mr. M.Senthil Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.U.Bharanidharan, SGP RR1 to 4
Mr.K.Ravikumar R5
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated
23.01.2023 in Na.Ka.No.1026/2021/A6 passed by the third
respondent/Additional Director of Panchayat, Salem.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having a male
child namely Hariprasad aged about three years old and the child was studing in
the Anganwadi School which is under control of the 4th respondent. On
29.08.2019, the petitioner's child, while playing in the school, a steel gate felt on
him and got grievous injuries. Immediately, the child was admitted in hospital
and taken treatment. In the meanwhile, the petitioners wife lodged a complaint
against the Anganwadi teacher Malarkodi and Assistant Rani. On 16.10.2019, the
petitioner's son died. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated
04.11.2019 to the respondents requesting to take action against the 5 th respondent
and to grant compensation of the death of his son for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to
him. After receiving his request, the respondents have issued the impugned order
dated 23.01.2023. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that due
to negligence on the part of the respondents 4 & 5, the child has been died.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation. Further, the petitioner is
doing collie work and earning very meager amount. For the treatment of his son,
the petitioner has mortgaged a property and spent more money. However, in this
regard, the State Government has already paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour
of the petitioner, which is very meager. This Court may direct the respondents to
grant compensation to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted that in this connection, the petitioner made complaint before the
Valapadi Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.268/2019 under
Section 336 and 338 of IPC. The Anganwadi worker and helper were put under
suspension due to their irresponsible and lethargic attitude at the time of working
hours. However, the State Government has paid a compensation for the death of
the child for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
present writ petition is covered by the earlier Order passed by this Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2020 7 SCC 256 in the case of Rajendra Singh and others vs.
National Insurance Company Limited and others Court . The relevant portions of
the order are extracted here under:
14. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender, (2006) 13
SCC 60, the deceased victim of the accident was a nine year old school
going child. Considering the claim for loss of future prospects in
absence of a regular income, it was observed that the compensation so
determined had to be just and proper by a judicious approach and not
fixed arbitrarily or whimsically. The uncertainties of a young life were
noticed in the following terms: “12. In cases of young children of
tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the
time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income
nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper
determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early
age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits,
achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many
that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore,
neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on
estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable
of mathematical computation.”
15. The deduction on account of contributory negligence has
already been held by us to be unsustainable. The determination of a just
and proper compensation to the appellants with regard to the deceased
child, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case does not
persuade us to enhance the same any further from Rs.2,95,000/ by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
granting any further compensation under the separate head of “future
prospects”. It may only be noticed that R.K. Malik (supra) does not
consider Satender (supra) on the grant of future prospects as far as
children are concerned.
16. Kajal (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts. The victim of
the accident was a nine month old child, whose disability certificate
reflected that she would grow up to be an adult lying on the bed with all
the physical and biological attributes of a woman on attaining
adulthood, but her mind would remain of a nine month old child
because of the accident. The case is completely distinguishable on its
own facts and did not arise out of a death claim, leading to award of
compensation towards expenses for frequent treatment, hospitalization,
transportation, loss of future earnings, attendant charges, pain,
suffering, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and future
medical treatment etc.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
7. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioners'
child died on 16.10.2019. While playing in the school campus, the steel gate was
felt on the child. It is the admitted fact that due to negligence, the incident
occurred.
8. Considering the said incident, the State Government have already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner. The learned Government
Advocate relied on the judgment as stated supra will squarely apply to the facts
of the present case also.
9. In view of the above settled position of law, this Court directs the
first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the
petitioner, apart from the amount which was already paid, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No cost.
23.03.2023
rli
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
3. The Additional Director of Panchayat,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Office of the Collectorate,
Salem District, Salem.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Salem Revenue Division, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
rli
W.P.No.33945 of 2019
29.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
