Allowed

P.Muthurakku, v. the Chief Secretary

Madras HC2 Sept 2014WP(MD)/12580/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Article 226 writ petition, the Madras High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order rejecting compensation for a fire-damaged house, and directed the State to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as adhoc compensation to the petitioner, noting that the Electricity Board was exonerated.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Respondents 2 and 5 directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as adhoc compensation within four weeks.

P.Muthurakku, Vs the Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.09.2014 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶4

W.P.(MD) No.12580 of 2014

¶5

P.Muthurakku ... Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai-9

¶8

2.The District Collector Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar

¶9

3.Assistant Engineer Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Veeracholan, Virudhunagar District

¶10

4.Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District

¶11

5.The Tahsildar Thiruchuli Taluk Virudhunagar District ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the fifth respondent in e.f/M5/679/2014, dated 25.01.2014, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees elevan lakhs only) as compensation to the petitioner and to the petitioner's family members for damage as compensation with 12% interest per annum from the date of claim petition (representation) on 13.01.2014 granting such other and further reliefs.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arun @ Arunachalam

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.M.Raja Rajan, G.A.,

¶15

for R1, R2 & R5

¶16

Mr.G.Kasinathadurai for R3 & R4

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶19

¶20

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order, dated 25.01.2014, passed by the fifth respondent and to direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- to the petitioner and his family members for the damages sustained to their house.

¶21

The petitioner is one Mr.P.Muthurakku and he has three sons and one daughter. His eldest son is the junior member of this Bar, second son joined in the Tamil Nadu Police Service as Police Constable, third son is working as a Coolie in a private concern and the petitioner's daughter completed higher secondary education. The petitioner and his family members were living in their ancestral house, which is a tiled house and they also obtained electricity service connection from the respondent Electricity Board. Whileso, on 10.01.2014 due to heavy rain, the electricity service connection given to the petitioner's house was damaged and the entire house caught fire. The petitioner being the sole breadwinner of the family having lost all his belongings was thrown to street. The petitioner belongs to a downtrodden community and when this matter came to the notice of the Advocates of this Court, they joined together, collected some amount and immediately paid to the petitioner to tide over the financial crisis of the petitioner's family.

¶22

The petitioner requested the Government for sanction of compensation for the damages caused to his property, which was not on account of any fault committed by the petitioner, but because of the faulty wires as well as due to heavy rain in that area. The fact that there was heavy rain in that area and the petitioner's house was burnt down are not in dispute and it is reported in Tamil Daily, dated 17.01.2014. In the typed set of papers, photographs have been filed showing the extensive damage caused to the tiled house.

¶23

The petitioner sent a representation to the respondents seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- so that he will be able to rehabilitate himself and his family. However, by the impugned proceedings, dated 25.01.2014, the fifth respondent rejected the petitioner's request for grant of compensation, by relying upon the reports, dated 24.01.2014, submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, Adithanendal Village and the Revenue Inspector, Narikudi, stating that the petitioner's second son is working in Tamil Nadu Police Department and therefore the question of granting compensation for the fire accident cannot be granted.

¶24

In my view, the petitioner is a victim of a fire accident. He has four children and one of whom has joined in the Police Department as constable recently. Admittedly, the house was not damaged due to natural causes but on account of the electrical short circuit. Therefore, the petitioner's application could very well be considered under any of the welfare schemes of the Government without rejecting the same on technical grounds.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate produced a copy of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.388, dated 04.10.2001, grating https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compensation for natural calamities. However, the said Government Order applies to thatched houses and the compensation is in the range

¶26

¶27

of Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, the said Government Order would not apply to the facts of the present case.

¶28

It is to be pointed out that the Government has several measures to rehabilitate the downtrodden people, who have been affected by calamities, such as flood and thane cyclone. Both the Central and State Governments have taken efficacious steps to rehabilitate the affected people. It may be true that the petitioner's case is an individual case. Nevertheless he has suffered extensive damage and his house is completely burnt down. The authorities ought to have perused the photographs of the burnt down house before taking a decision in the matter.

¶29

As against the respondent Electricity Board, there is no specific plea of negligence, excepting to state that because of the heavy wind there was a spark in the service connection, which resulted in fire accident. Therefore, the Electricity Board stands exonerated from the claim in this writ petition. Furthermore, the Electricity Board does not dispute the fact that there was electrical short circuit, which resulted in the fire accident.

¶30

In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that reasonable amount of compensation should be granted to the petitioner to bring him out of the misery and rehabilitate him and his family and to restore the house into a livable condition. However, this compensation has to be paid only in adhoc in nature and it is open to the petitioner to work out his claim before the Civil Court for enhanced compensation.

¶31

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 25.01.2014, passed by the fifth respondent is set aside. The respondents 2 and 5 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/towards compensation to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, which shall be received by the petitioner without prejudice to his rights to claim for additional compensation, if so desired, by approaching the Civil Court. No costs.

¶32

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶33

\True copy\

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

To:

¶36

1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶37

2.The District Collector,

¶38

Virudhunagar District, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Virudhunagar.

¶39

¶40

3.Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Veeracholan, Virudhunagar District.

¶41

4.Assistant Executive Engineer, (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶42

5.The Tahsildar, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶43

+1 CC to Mr.G.KASINATHADURAI, ADVOCATE SR.NO.49744

¶44

+1 CC to Mr.ARUN SWAMINATHAN, ADVOCATE SR.NO.49344

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.12580 of 2014

02.09.2014

KRK

NA/15/09/2014/P4/8C

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

P.Muthurakku, v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Muthurakku, v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Eswari Vs the Superintendent of

Sara Aqua Minerals, Vs the Bureau of Indian Standards

P. Senthil Ganesh, Vs the Joint Registrar

G.Vigneshwaran, Vs the Branch Manager

M. Veetayan, Vs the Inspector General of

M.Mary Vs the District Collector