Allowed

Kadirvel S/O Davamani v. the Government of Tamili Nadu

Madras HC22 Oct 2019WP/12693/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition seeking compensation for the death of a minor girl in a quarry pit. It held the public works department negligent for failing to fence the area or post warnings. The court awarded Rs.3 lakhs as just compensation.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs.3 lakhs as compensation and 9% interest on this amount from the date of filing.

Kadirvel S/O Davamani Vs the Government of Tamili… — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.10.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. 12693 of 2006 and W.P.M.P. 14298 of 2006

D. Kadirvel

... Petitioner

Versus

The Government of Tamil Nadu, by its Secretary to Government, Public Wealth Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶10

The District Collector, Vellore District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Vaiyambadi Taluk, Vellore District.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Vellore District, Vellore. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner due to the tragic death of his daughter K.Priya on 25.03.2006 in Palar River, Minor Pasanapalli, Melashanang Kuppam, Vellore District.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents : Mr.I.Sathish, Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking compensation for the death of petitioner's daughter by name K.Priya.

¶18

According to the petitioner, deceased Priya was the eldest daughter of the petitioner and she was studying IV Std. in a local school. On 25.03.2006, the deceased Priya was playing around the river bed, and around 3 p.m. she had slipped into a pit dug by the respondents, struck in the slush, and she has lost her life.

¶19

According to the petitioner, on account of indiscriminate quarrying operations made by the respondents, and some sand mafia, the depth of the river had been gone down to nearly 20 to 30 ft. The depth was uneven, and at some places, water and sand remains mixed and formed slush. The mining activities in Palaru bed is undertaken by the State, and more than 500 lorries used to fly through the area without proper permission. There were widespread agitation by the public at large against the illegal quarrying operation, which is causing danger to the life of the residents in that area.

¶20

The deceased being a minor child, around 9 years old, fell down in a pit caused due to the illegal mining, and the death has occurred only due to the negligence of the respondents. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking compensation.

¶21

The 4^th respondent, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, filed a counter affidavit admitting the fact that the sand quarry has been done by the Public Works Department at the place of occurrence. According to them, the approach road for quarrying sand has been done in the area by trenching the sides of the river to a depth of 4'6” feet. The borrow pit earth work done near the approach roads is below 3 ft. from the ground level and the road height is about 2 ft. An average of 100 lorries of sand loads were sold from the above quarry. It is further stated that the victim seems to have ventured into the area along with her friends to play, unfortunately, she fell down into the trench and had drowned. The parents of the victim have been negligent and they ought not to have allowed a child of 10 years to go over to an area, where quarrying work has been carried on. Immediately after the incident, the 3^rd respondent visited the spot and conducted enquiry and filed his report before the 2^nd respondent District Collector. At that time, about 115 villagers had gathered there, and in order to advert law and order problem, the 3^rd respondent has given a statement in line with the demand made by the villagers. In fact, the 3^rd respondent was compelled and forced to give such a statement to the 2^nd respondent. According to the 4^th respondent, the quarrying was done within the permissible limit, and there is no negligence on the part of the respondents. But, due to the

¶22

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

¶23

negligence of the victim, she had fell down in a pit.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records carefully.

¶25

It is an admitted fact that the victim minor girl died by falling down in a quarry pit, and the quarrying operation was conducted by the Public Works Department. The learned counsel for petitioner has stated that there was indiscriminate quarrying operations by the respondents in Palaru River bed, and left the quarried pit unattended, and there is no proper fencing in the site. The 4^th respondent has admitted the fact that they have only conducted the quarrying operation, but after conducting quarrying operation, they have not fenced that area, and put up proper sign board, and there is no denial on the part of the respondents that after the quarrying operation, the pits have been closed properly. That apart, from the perusal of records, it could be seen that, immediately after the occurrence, the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar visited the site, conducted an enquiry, and filed a report before the District Collector stating that the occurrence took place due to the negligence of the respondents. Even though the 4^th respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that, the above statement was forcibly obtained by the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar, the 3^rd respondent did not file any affidavit disputing the report submitted by him. When the respondents are conducting quarrying operation, it is their duty to provide protective measures by fencing the area, and putting up sign board warning the public from entering into the area, and also close the pits after the quarrying operations are over. The victim was a minor, aged about 9 years, ventured into the area along with her friends to play, and she fell into the open trench and drowned. If the respondents are vigilant and provided all protective measures, the accident ought not to have occurred. Therefore, it is only due to the negligence of the respondents, the young child has lost her life, and the respondents are liable to pay compensation for her death.

¶26

So far as the maintainability of the writ petition seeking compensation is concerned, it is settled law that the public law remedy is available to the petitioner seeking compensation when the right to life is infringed, and the petitioner can maintain a Writ Petition under Art.226 of Constitution of India as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.S.Grewal vs. Deep Chand Sood reported in 2001 (8) SCC 151.

¶27

Regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was 9 years old at the time of death. it is stated that she is a brilliant girl and lost her life at the budding age. Her parents have lost love and affection. Considering the above circumstances, this Court is of the view to award a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner will be just and fair compensation.

¶28

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

¶29

In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In default, the respondents are directed to pay interest for the above said amount at the rate of 9% from the date of filing Writ Petition till the payment of compensation. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Petition Miscellaneous Petition in W.P.M.P. 14298 of 2006 is closed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

rpp

¶35

¶36

The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Wealth Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶37

The District Collector, Vellore District.

¶38

The Tahsildar, Vaiyambadi Taluk, Vellore District.

¶39

The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Vellore District, Vellore.

¶40

+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 89174

¶41

+1cc to Mr.Raghavachari , Advocate SR.No. 88168

¶42

W.P. 12693 of 2006 and W.P.M.P. 14298 of 2006

¶43

A.SK(19/12/2019)

¶44

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

Kadirvel S/O Davamani v. the Government of Tamili Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadirvel S/O Davamani v. the Government of Tamili Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minor Vignesh Represented Vs Th Executive Officer

T.Sethupathi Vs the Chairman

M/S.Foods Fats & Fertilisers Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its

Perumalkoil Thenacharya Vs the Commissioner

M.Selvam Vs the District Collector

The Sacred Heart College Vs the Government of Tamilnadu