Dismissed

State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Inbaraj

Madras HC22 Apr 2014WA/1689/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench dismissed the State's appeal against an interim order appointing a One-Man Commission to determine compensation and liability in the Kumbakonam School Fire tragedy, upholding the single judge's direction to ascertain just compensation.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; interim order appointing One-Man Commission confirmed with modification to submit report within four months.

State of Tamil Nadu Vs K.Inbaraj — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22-04-2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶7

W.A.No.1689 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
and
W.P.No.8196 of 2012
W.A.No.1689 of 2013:
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
through its Chief Secretary,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Chennai – 9. ... Appellants
Vs.
1. K.Inbaraj
2. Union of India,
through its Secretary,
Homes, New Delhi.
3. Shri Krishna Aided Primary School
and Saraswathi Primary School,
Kasiraman street,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District
through its Correspondent
Pulavar Palanisami. ... Respondents

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

W.P.No.8196 of 2012:

¶10

K.Inbaraj ... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Union of India, through Secretary Homes, New Delhi. 2. State of Tamil Nadu, through its Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 3. The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai – 9. 4. Shri Krishna Aided Primary School and Saraswathi Primary School, Kasiraman street, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District Tamil Nadu, through its Correspondent Pulavar Palanisami, Dabeer First street, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District Tamil Nadu.

¶13

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.10.2012 made in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.8196 of 2012.

¶14

W.P.No.8196 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant compensation along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of tragedy till the date of payment to the family of the deceased.

¶15

For Appellants Mr.A.L.Somayaji in W.A.1689/2013 : Advocate General and R2 & R3 in assisted by W.P.8196/2012 Mr.D.Krishnakumar Spl. Govt. Pleader (Edn.)

¶16

For Respondent No.1 in W.A.1689 of : Mr.S.Tamilarasan 2013 and Petitioner in W.P.8196/2012

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

For 2^nd Respondent Mr.V.R.Karthikeyan in W.A.1689/2013 & : ACGSC 1^st Respondent in W.P.8196/2012 For 3^rd Respondent in W.A.1689/2013 & : No Appearance 4^th Respondent in W.P.8196/2012

¶19

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶20

Writ Appeal No.1689 of 2013 was filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the interim order made by the learned single Judge in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.8196 of 2012 dated 19.10.2012, wherein the writ petitioner sought to appoint One-Man Commission for determining the amount of compensation payable to the victims or their next kin who perished in fire accident occurred in the premises of Shri Krishna Aided Primary School, Kumbakonam and also corrective medical treatment to the injured students, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

The writ petition viz., W.P.No.8196 of 2012 was filed by the writ petitioner praying to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents in the writ petition to grant compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of tragedy till the date of payment to the families of the deceased (fire accident occurred in the premises of Shri Krishna Aided Primary School, Karisaman street, Kumbakonam, Tanjore District on 16.7.2004).

¶22

When the writ appeal was posted for disposal, the learned Advocate General as well as the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, who is the first respondent in the writ appeal consented for posting the writ petition itself along with the writ appeal for disposal, as the issue in both the matters are one and the same, namely, claiming compensation for the victims of Shri Krishna Aided Primary School during the fire accident which happened on 16.7.2004. Consequently, the writ petition was also posted along with the writ appeal, as specially ordered case by an administrative order of the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice and both the matters are heard together.

¶23

For convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in the writ petition.

¶24

Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-

¶25

(i) The writ petitioner is the Secretary of Kumbakonam Fire Tragedy Victim Association, who has filed the writ petition claiming

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

compensation to the families of the deceased students and to pay compensation to the injured students.

¶28

(ii) On 16.7.2004, there was a fire accident in the school premises of Shri Krishna Aided Primary School at Karisaman street in Kumbakonam. Two sons of K.Inbaraj, who is also the Secretary of Kumbakonam Fire Tragedy Victim Association along with 92 other students were burnt alive and 14 other students got fire burns upto 60% in the fire accident.

¶29

(iii) The Government of Tamil Nadu, through G.O.Ms.No.1179 Public (Law and Order-F)Department, dated 20.7.2004 appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Sampath, former Judge of this Court as One- Man Commission under the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952 to inquire into the cause and circumstances to the fire accident that occurred in the premises of Shri Krishna Aided Primary School, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District on 16.7.2004 and to suggest all reform measures needed to ensure prevention of such incidents in future. The terms of reference did not cover the compensation payable to the families of the victims as well as the injured students.

¶30

(iv) The said One-Man Commission filed its report on 30.6.2006. The One-Man Commission gave a finding that the gruesome accident and the consequent deaths are an indictment of the Management, the Noon Meal Centre staff, the Revenue authorities, the Chartered Engineer, the Municipal authorities and the Education Department officials, who refused to recognise their obligations towards the children in housing or accommodating them in structures, which were death traps and it was an accident due to the carelessness of the Noon Meal staff, the callous indifference and criminal insensitivity on the part of the Management, running the schools, compounded and abetted by the Departments concerned, which failed to implement and enforce the Laws and safety standards. The said finding was given in Para 281 of the Commission's report.

¶31

(v) According to the writ petitioner, immediately after the fire accident, the State Government sanctioned an ex-gratia amount of Rs.1 lakh and the Central Government sanctioned Rs.50,000/- to the families of the deceased children and the injured students were given treatment in private hospitals and after some time, the District Administration provided 54 housing pattas to an extent of 400 sq. ft. each to the deceased parents.

¶32

(vi) It is the contention of the writ petitioner that the said payment was made only as an ex-gratia by the Central Government as well as the State Government, without ascertaining the actual/just compensation payable to the families of the deceased children as well as the injured students. Therefore, the petitioner sent several representations to the Government for payment of actual compensation,

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

to which they are entitled as per law, but no action was taken.

¶35

(vii) The writ petitioner also approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No35 of 2011 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the said writ petition was dismissed holding that there was no valid ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, dismissal of the writ petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not on merits and only on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the victim families and the injured children are entitled to claim compensation by filing this writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to get actual/deserving compensation from the respondent-State Government as per tortuous/vicarious liability.

¶36

(viii) As no authority has quantified the compensation payable to the victims, even though negligence on the part of the Management, staff as well as the Government authorities is proved by the One-Man Commission, appointed by the State Government and criminal action was also initiated against the persons responsible for their criminal liability, the petitioner has filed M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.8196 of 2012, praying for appointment of One-Man Commission to determine the amount of compensation payable to the victims or their next kin and also expenses towards corrective medical treatment to the injured students.

¶37

The learned single Judge, considering the gravity of the matter and the meagre amount of ex-gratia already paid, when compared to the loss of life, thought fit to issue an interim direction on 19.10.2012 by a detailed order by appointing Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Shanmugam, former Judge of this Court to determine the extent and percentage of negligence and corresponding liability on each of the party in respect of the fire accident that took place on 16.7.2004 in the school premises namely, Shri Krishna Aided Primary School, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, which led to the death and injuries to the children and also to fix the quantum of compensation payable to each of the families of the deceased and injured children and to find out the further medical aid required to the injured children, with its recommendations, and submit a report not later than six months from the date on which the State Government provide necessary infrastructures, as directed. Aggrieved by the said direction issued by the learned single Judge, appointing One-Man Commission as stated supra, the writ appeal is filed by the State.

¶38

The Deputy Secretary to the Government, School Education Department filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition.

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

(a) In the counter-affidavit, the fire accident which took place on 16.7.2004 in Shri Krishna Aided Primary School, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, the death of 94 children, and sustaining of burn injuries by 18 children are admitted. It is stated in the counteraffidavit that the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had visited the site of accident on 16.7.2004 and also visited the hospital, where the injured were treated and consoled the parents and also sanctioned an ex-gratia amount of Rs.1 lakh to the families of each of the student, who died in the accident and Rs.25,000/- to each of the grievously injured students, and Rs.10,000/- to each of those students who sustained minor injuries, from the Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund. The relief was sanctioned to the families of 94 children who had died, families of 15 children, who had suffered major injuries and families of 3 children, who had suffered minor injuries.

¶41

(b) It is further contended in the counter-affidavit that the State Government also made available the best treatment to the surviving victims, apart from, psychological counselling to all the students and also to the families of the victims, to over come the trauma of the gruesome accident. Out of 18 injured children, 5 were given further treatment at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and three children were sent to the best private hospitals like Apollo Hospital. Two children were sent to Apollo hospital, Chennai for plastic surgery.

¶42

(c) It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the Chief Minister ordered closure of the said school immediately and cancelled the permission given to run the schools by the Management. The recognition granted to the schools were withdrawn and alternative arrangements were made to admit the children, who were studying in those schools, in the nearby schools as per their choice. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, the District Elementary Educational Officer, the Chief Educational Officer were immediately placed under suspension for their slackness in supervision and failure to ensure that the Management of the schools conformed to the safety norms.

¶43

(d) It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that since the entire incident was due to the grave negligence on the part of the private school Management and slackness in supervision on the part of the Inspecting Officers. Criminal prosecution had been launched against the Correspondent of the school and concerned officials, and those officials have also been proceeded with departmental action. After the said accident, steps were taken to remove the thatched structures in the schools and to replace them with non-inflammable materials. The One- Man Commission, appointed to inquire into the cause and circumstances, leading to the fire accident and to suggest all reform measures, having submitted its report, further action was taken as stated supra, by taking

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶45

departmental and criminal action against the department officials.

¶46

(e) The local body has erected a Memorial at the cost of Rs.30,50,000/- approximately with the inscription of names of the deceased children. The State Government have sanctioned Rs.41,893/to each of the families of children who died, Rs.10,000/- to the parents of the children who sustained grievous injuries, and Rs.4,000/- to the families of children who sustained minor injury in the accident, from the contributions made by the Members of Parliament of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

¶47

(f) The writ petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dismissed on 26.9.2011, after accepting the submissions of the State Government, and therefore, the present writ petition filed for the same relief is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶48

Mr.S.Tamilarasan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner argued that 94 children perished in the fire accident due to the carelessness and criminal negligence of the school Management, authorities of the Government, including Education department. Even though the life of the deceased children could not be retrieved, the parents of the deceased children are entitled to get adequate compensation. The injured students, are suffering even now for getting treatment and for the loss of amenities in life they are entitled to get adequate compensation. Payment of ex-gratia amount by the State Government as well as by the Central Government and contributions from the Member of Parliament of Uttar Pradesh Relief Fund can be adjusted from the compensation payable after ascertaining the quantum. Granting of house patta to 54 families of the deceased children to an extent of 400 sq. ft. had also been borne in mind while appointing the One-Man Commission by the learned single Judge and the Commission can recommend further amount payable, if any, and the members of writ petitioner Association are agreeable to receive the balance amount after adjusting the amount already paid.

¶49

The learned counsel further submitted that the writ petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was dismissed with a specific reason that there was no valid ground to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court nowhere states that the relief/compensation already granted is sufficient and therefore, the prayer now made is maintainable. Hence, the writ petitioner is entitled to file the present writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India for claiming adequate compensation and the principles of res-judicata cannot be applied on the facts and circumstances of the case, as the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not on merits, but on technical reason, namely, there was no

¶50

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶51

valid ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.13214 of 1996 dated 09.11.2009 [Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims Association v. Union of India and others] in support of his contention wherein, in similar incident, the victims were paid higher compensation due to fire tragedy in D.A.V.Centenary Public School, Mandi Dabwali, where 446 children and women died and nearly 200 persons suffered burn injuries.

¶52

Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that the writ petitioner having raised similar ground before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court having rejected the prayer by dismissing the writ petition, though filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition is not maintainable, and the learned single Judge was not right in entertaining the writ petition and passing interim order appointing One-Man Commission to ascertain the extent of compensation payable by each of the respondents.

¶53

The learned Advocate General mainly contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the writ petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed. The learned Advocate General also cited the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in (2009) 2 MLJ 417 [Dr.E.Muralidharan v. Union of India, rep. by Secretary to Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi-1 and others] and also an un-reported judgment made in W.P.No.33935 of 2007 dated 10.9.2008 [R.Raghavan v. The Chief Secretary to Tamil Nadu, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and others] in support of his contentions and prayed for dismissing the writ petition.

¶54

We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing for the State and also perused the materials available on record.

¶55

The writ petitioner – K.Inbaraj, who is also the Secretary of Kumbakonam Fire Tragedy Victim Association had lost his two sons in the fire tragedy occurred on 16.7.2004 in the premises of Shri Krishna Aided Primary School, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. The writ petition prayer is to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of tragedy till the date of payment to the families of the deceased children and for giving compensation to the parents of the children numbering 94, who perished in the fire accident and for paying compensation to 18 children, who sustained injuries in the said fire accident.

¶56

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶57

The fact regarding the incident, namely, major fire accident occurred on 16.7.2004 in Shri Krishna Aided Primary School, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and in the said fire accident, 94 children died and 18 children sustained burn injuries, are not in dispute. The said fact was verified by none other than the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu by visiting the accident site and the hospital on the very same day. A sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid as an ex-gratia amount from the Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund to the families of each of the children who died in the fire accident and a sum of Rs.25,000/- to each of grievously injured children, and Rs.10,000/to each of the children, who sustained minor injuries, are also not disputed. The treatment given to the injured children at that time either in the Government hospital or in the private hospitals are also not disputed. 54 families were given house site pattas, who are victims of the said fire accident to an extent of 400 sq. ft. is also not in dispute. Payment of Rs.50,000/- from the Prime Minister's Relief Fund to the families of the deceased children and a paltry sum paid to the families of the deceased children as well as to the injured children from the funds contributed by the Member of Parliament of Uttar Pradesh is also not in dispute.

¶58

The only contention of the writ petitioner, who filed the present writ petition on his behalf and on behalf of the families of the perished children as well as the injured children is to provide adequate compensation with 12% interest per annum from the date of accident. The reason for the accident is fully explained by the OneMan Commission appointed by the State Government. In Paragraph 281, the Commission indicted not only the Management and Staff of the Aided School, but also the Officers of Revenue, Public Works Department and Education Department. Thus the negligence/criminal negligence is proved and the same is also accepted by the State Government by taking follow up actions.

¶59

Payment of adequate compensation to the families of the victims is a settled principle of law, even though, payment of any compensation will not remove the agony of the families of the deceased children as well as grievously injured children. Even though the present writ petition is filed for a broader relief praying writ of mandamus seeking direction to the respondents to grant compensation along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of tragedy till the date of payment to the deceased families, the said prayer can be moulded by the High Court, while deciding the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while deciding the issue.

¶60

The primary contention of the learned Advocate General in opposing the writ petition is, filing of the writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.35 of 2011 making similar prayer having been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by

¶61

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶62

an order dated 26.9.2011, the present writ petition filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking payment of compensation is not maintainable.

¶63

At this juncture, it is just and appropriate to refer the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.35 of 2011, dated 26.9.2011, which reads thus,

¶64

"ORDER

¶65

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶66

We find no valid ground to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is dismissed."

¶67

From the reading of the order, we are of the view that the writ petition filed, directly before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, invoking jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, was not entertained as the Hon'ble Supreme Court found no valid ground.

¶68

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner vehemently contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not dismissed the writ petition on merits and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated the reason for dismissing the writ petition, that 'no valid ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India'.

¶69

There is substance in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. If the writ petition was dismissed without stating any reason, definitely, this Court is not competent to entertain further writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court only by stating that no valid ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petitioner is justified in contending that no decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding adequacy of compensation payable to the families of the deceased as well as to the injured students.

¶70

The un-reported decision cited by the learned Advocate General namely W.P.No.33935 of 2007, dated 10.9.2008 is distinguishable, as the writ petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the very same petitioner praying for a direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu to enforce the orders and direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.No.499 of 1997 dated 02.5.2005, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 565 so far as it relates to the implementation of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Rules as under Article 142(1) of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after hearing the matter, dismissed the writ petition without stating any reason. If the writ petition is dismissed after hearing, definitely,

¶71

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶72

the party to the litigation cannot file second writ petition without obtaining liberty from the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶73

In this case, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that “no valid ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India”. Hence, the said decision cited by the learned Advocate General has no application to the facts of the present case.

¶74

Applicability of the principles of res-judicata was pleaded by the learned Advocate General. The Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in (2009) 2 MLJ 417 [Dr.E.Muralidharan v. Union of India, rep. by Secretary to Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi-1 and others] considered similar issue and in paragraphs (8) and (9), it is held thus:-

¶75

"8. It is well known and cannot be disputed and has not been disputed before us that the scope of Article 226 is wider than Article 32. However on territorial limits an order under Article 32 can operate in any part of India, whereas an order under Article 226 has necessarily to operate within the State where the High Court is situate, subject to the exceptions under Article 226(2). Article 32 confers a fundamental right on a litigant to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The grievances which can be raised under Article 32 are to be limited to an examination of the question whether the Fundamental Right of the petitioner has been infringed or not. Article 226, on the other hand, has conferred a power on the High Court to entertain a proceeding for enforcement of a Fundamental Right covered by Part-III and 'for any other purpose'. This expression "for any other purpose" has been judicially construed by the Honourable Apex Court to include enforcement of any other right viz., statutory right or constitutional right or may be even a common law right.

¶76

Article 226 of the Constitution has been designedly couched in a very comprehensive phraseology and it ex-facie confers very wide powers on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 are wider than the dismissed as withdrawn without any discussion on the merits of the case, that cannot bar the petitioner's access to a writ Court under Article 226."

¶77

In the said decision, the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge was on the ground that the party to the proceeding earlier approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the same was dismissed as withdrawn, and the writ petition filed before this Court under

¶78

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶79

Article 226 having been dismissed as not maintainable, the writ appeal was preferred, and the First Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned single Judge and held that the writ petition filed before this Court was maintainable. Though the facts are slightly different, still the principles spelt out therein, can be applied to the facts of this case, as the claim of the writ petitioner is to pay compensation.

¶80

Payment of compensation is a civil right/tortuous liability of the respondents. Writ petition can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to enforce the Fundamental Rights and not for other reasons. Here, for claiming compensation, the present writ petition is filed and the same is definitely maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the learned single Judge was justified in entertaining the writ petition and issuing interim direction to appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Shanmugam, former Judge of this Court to go into the issue regarding payment of compensation, fix the extent and percentage of negligence and the corresponding liability on each of the party etc.

¶81

The said direction issued by the learned single Judge in M.P.No.1 of 2012, cannot be treated as illegal, as it is well settled in law that a person sustained injury in the accident or victims of the accident are entitled to get just compensation. If, we apply the said principle to the facts of this case, even though some compensation was already paid uniformly to all the families as an exgratia amount or otherwise, the just compensation payable to the families of the deceased 94 students, who died in the fire accident and the compensation payable to the injured students, who sustained injuries in the fire accident have to be ascertained. Only after the quantum of compensation payable to each of the families of the deceased students and injured students is quantified, this Court will be in a position to state as to whether the amounts or relief extended to the families, can be treated as just compensation. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned single Judge was right in appointing Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Shanmugam, former Judge of this Court, as One-Man Commission.

¶82

(i) In the decision reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274 (Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that compensation to meet the future medical expenses are to be determined in a given case, if the victim is in need of future treatment.

¶83

(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Smt.Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) held that payment of just compensation to the victims of the accident is one of the legal requirement to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong.

¶84

(iii) In the decision reported in 2013 (3) CTC 883 (SC) (Rajesh and others v. Rajbit Singh and others), the Hon'ble Supreme

¶85

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶86

Court held that while deciding the compensation payable to the victim, the Courts should ignore all technicalities and niceties in process for arriving at just and equitable compensation, even if lesser amount is claimed.

¶87

(iv) With regard to determination of compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2013) 12 SCC 603 (S.Manickam v. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited) in Paragraph 14 held thus:-

¶88

"14. In matters of determination of compensation, particularly, under the Motor Vehicles Act, both the tribunals and the High Courts are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a "just compensation". It is true that determination of "just compensation"cannot be equated to a bonanza. On the other hand, the concept of "just compensation"suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and the courts. We hold that the determination of quantum in motor accidents cases and compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 must be liberal since the law values life and limb in free country in generous scales. The adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to take note of the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. While computing compensation, the approach of the tribunal or a court has to be broad based and sometimes it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation."

¶89

The issue regarding payment of compensation for the death of school children due to negligence on the part of the Management/Education Department Authorities was considered by this Court in the following decisions:-

¶90

(i)2004 WLR 611 (Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu v. Ms.R.Selvam) – Rs.5 lakhs compensation was awarded.

¶91

(ii)2006 WLR 13 (C.Thekkamalai v. State of Tamil Nadu) – Rs.5 lakhs compensation was awarded.

¶92

(iii)2006 WLR 608 (Lakshmana Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu) – Rs.5 lakhs compensation was awarded.

¶93

(iv)(2008) 8 MLJ 1085 (P.N.Kanagaraj v. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu) – Rs.6 lakhs compensation was awarded.

¶94

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶95

In this case, the facts regarding payment of any additional sum to the victims of the fire accident in question can be decided depending upon the quantum to be arrived at by the One-Man Commission, after submitting its report and at that time, the amount already paid can also be adjusted.

¶96

Hence, the writ appeal – W.A.No.1689 of 2013 filed by the State Government is dismissed and we confirm the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.10.2012 made in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.8196 of 2012 with a modification requesting the One-Man Commission appointed by the learned single Judge to submit the report within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellants are directed to carry out the directions issued by the learned single Judge in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.8196 of 2012, dated 19.10.2012 in all respects, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in W.A.No.1689 of 2013 are closed.

¶97

For passing further orders in the writ petition depending upon the One-Man Commission's recommendation, list the writ petition – W.P.No.8196 of 2012 for further hearing on 15-09-2014.

¶98

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CSV) Dated:22/4/2014 True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶99

To 1.The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Shanmugam (Former Judge) New No.204 TTK Road Teynampet,Chennai-18

¶100

The Secretary Homes,

¶101

New Delhi. 3. The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 4. The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai – 9. 5. The section officer, writ section, high court Madras (for posting the WPNO.8196/12 for hearing on 15/9/14 +1 cc to M/S.S.Tamilarasan Advocate vide sr.19116

¶102

Common Judgment in W.A.No.1689 of 2013 and W.P.No.8196 of 2012 aa22/04/2014

¶103

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Inbaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Inbaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudha Ramalingam Vs Registrar General

Puducherry Environment Vs the Union of India

K.Vijayakumar, Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

Mrs.K. Gayathri Vs General Manager (Marketing

G.Ashokan, Vs the District Collector

Mohan Vs State Bank of India