Disposed

D.Sathiyavani, v. the Government of Puducherry

Madras HC9 Oct 2018WP/22325/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking compensation for the death of the petitioner's son at a college. Upon the parties entering into a compromise agreement for Rs. 5,00,000/-, the court held no adjudication was necessary and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner received Rs. 5,00,000/- via cheque from sixth respondent as per compromise.

D.Sathiyavani, Vs the Government of Puducherry — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:09.10.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P. No.22325 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶6

D.Sathiyavani .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Puducherry,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Puducherry.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram Sub Division,
Villupuram.
4.The Additional Superintendent of Police,
Crimes, VIllupuram District,
Villupuram.
5.The Director of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai - 25.
6.The Elumalai Polytechnic College,
Rep. by the Principal,
N.H.45, Trichy Trunk Road,
Villupuram - 605 602.
7.Gunasekaran
8.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9. .. Respondents
(R-8 impleaded as per order dated
03.10.2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2013
in W.P.No.22325 of 2012)

¶7

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

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the death of her son in the 6th respondent College with interest and cost from the date of his death.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Veerapathiran

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambiselvam Additional Government Pleader for R1

¶11

Mr.P.Raja

¶12

Government Advocate for R2 to R5 & R8

¶13

Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh for R6

¶14

No appearance for R7

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard Mr.G.Veerapathiran, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.B.Nambiselvam, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent; Mr.P.Raja, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2 to 5 & 8; Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh, learned counsel for the sixth respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the death of her son in the sixth respondent College with interest and costs.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the sixth respondent would state that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, a compromise was entered into between the parties, by which, the petitioner has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation from the sixth respondent and they have also produced the Joint Memo Compromise dated 09.10.2018. The Joint Compromise Memo reads as follows:-

¶19

"It is submitted that when he was in College, the petitioner's son had fallen down unconscious and died. The petitioner had alleged that the cause of his death was the 7th respondent, who was in the services of the respondent.

¶20

It is submitted that on the basis of the allegation of the petitioner, a complaint was registered against the second respondent on 27.07.2011 before the Inspector of Police, Villupuram.

¶21

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

¶22

Since the medical evidence proved otherwise and the seventh respondent was exonerated and acquitted by the Court as the petitioner's son died because of other medical reason.

¶23

The sixth respondent even though was not in anyway responsible for the death of the petitioner's son in any way, decided to compensate the petitioner on humanitarian grounds to comfort the grieving mother.

¶24

Both the petitioner and this respondent have entered into this Memo of compromise whereby the petitioner on this day receives Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by way of a cheque bearing No.462683 dated 20.10.2018 drawn on Indian Bank, Villupuram Branch towards full an final settlement of all claims as against this respondent including the contents of this Writ Petition and agrees to withdraw this Writ Petition."

¶25

In the light of the above submission and the Joint Compromise Memo dated 09.10.2018, this Court is of the view that no further adjudication is necessary in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Xerox copy of Joint Memo of Compromise enclosed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rns To

¶27

The Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry, Secretariat, Puducherry.

¶28

The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

¶29

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram Sub Division, Villupuram.

¶30

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

¶31

The Additional Superintendent of Police, Crimes, VIllupuram District, Villupuram.

¶32

The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai - 25.

¶33

The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

¶34

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.70126

¶35

W.P.No.22325 of 2012 &
M.P.No.1 of 2012
VD(CO)
CS/12/11/2018

¶36

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

D.Sathiyavani, v. the Government of Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Sathiyavani, v. the Government of Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Sekar Vs the District Collector

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Vs Tamilnadu Civil Supplies

G. Annamalai Nattar Vs the Commissioner

M.Murugesan, Vs the Executive Officer

G. Karunamoorthy Vs the Inspector General of

G.Manivel, Vs the Tamil Nadu Electricity