Allowed

M.Rajeswaran v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC3 Nov 2022WP/14289/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order returning a claim for victim compensation under the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme 2013. The High Court held the order was without application of mind and applicable the Scheme, as the victim was murdered under Section 304A IPC.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 23.02.2015 and directed the 4th respondent to consider the application and disburse compensation within twelve weeks from receipt of the order.

M.Rajeswaran Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.14289 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

W.P.No.14289 of 2015

1.M.Rajeswaran

2.R.Rani

...Petitioners

-Vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by. its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George,

¶12

Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The Director General of Police,

¶14

Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai.

¶15

3.The Inspector of Police, D-1, Chengalpet Police Station, Chengalpet, Kanchipuram District.

¶16

4.The State Legal Services Authority, Rep by its Member Secretary, High Court Campus, Chennai.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records of the 4^th respondent pertaining to the order dated 23.02.2015 made in

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

1/6

¶21

W.P.No.14289 of 2015

¶22

ROC.No.6/2015 of the petitioner claim application and quash the same and consequently direct the 4^th respondent to take on file the petitioner application and decide the case on merit in time bound manner.

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to

¶26

quash the impugned proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 23.02.2015 made in

¶27

ROC.No.6/2015 and directing the 4^th respondent to take on file the petitioner's application and to decide the petitioner's claim.

¶28

The claim is under the scheme called as “Tamil Nadu Victim

¶29

Compensation Scheme 2013”.

¶30

Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as

¶31

follows:

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

2/6

¶34

W.P.No.14289 of 2015

¶35

The petitioners are parents of one Mr. Karthik, who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is the specific case of the petitioners that their son after he got down from a bus at Chengalpattu, was knocked down by another Tamil Nadu State Government bus whose registration number could not been noticed. It is stated that petitioners' son died as a result of accident.

¶36

It is stated that the accident was immediately reported to the 3^rd respondent police. Though the 3^rd respondent registered the case in crime No.789 of 2014 under Section 304A of IPC and recorded the same as a case of hit and run, it is stated that the 3^rd respondent could neither identify nor secure the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle which hit the petitioner's son.

¶37

The petitioners thereafter filed an application for compensation under

¶38

Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme 2013 before the 4^th respondent. The application was returned and it was resubmitted by the petitioners. Thereafter the said application was once again returned by order dated 23.02.2015 on the ground that there is a specific provision under Section 161 of Motor Vehicle Act by covering the claim of the petitioners, and that therefore the scheme is not applicable to the petitioners.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

3/6

¶41

W.P.No.14289 of 2015

¶42

On reading of Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme, 2013, this

¶43

Court is able to see that the scheme was framed by the Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 357(A) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). The scheme contemplates providing funds by way of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of crime and who require rehabilitation.

¶44

The term “crime” is defined in Section 2(c) of the said scheme to mean illegal acts or omission or commission made punishable by any law or an offence committed against the human body of the victim. In this case the son of the petitioners is the victim of the crime which is punishable under Section 304A of IPC. Therefore the applicability of the scheme to the petitioners cannot be an issue. The application submitted by the petitioners is also well intact. This Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the 4^th respondent is without any application of mind. The application submitted by the petitioners is valid as per the Scheme in reference.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

4/6

¶47

W.P.No.14289 of 2015

¶48

Therefore this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in

¶49

ROC.No.6/2015 dated 23.02.2015 passed by the 4^th respondent is hereby set aside. This Court directs the 4^th respondent to consider the application of the petitioners filed under Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme 2013 in accordance with law and the State to disburse the compensation immediately in terms of the final order passed by the 4^th respondent which shall be within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.

03.11.2022

cda

1.The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶54

2.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai.

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/6

W.P.No.14289 of 2015

S.S.SUNDAR. J.,

cda

3.The Inspector of Police, D-1, Chengalpet Police Station, Chengalpet, Kanchipuram District.

¶61

4.The Member Secretary, The State Legal Services Authority, High Court Campus, Chennai.

¶62

W.P.No.14289 of 2015

¶63

03.11.2022

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

6/6

M.Rajeswaran v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajeswaran v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

T.Masthanamma Vs Kulasekar Kumar

M/s.Thermo Fisher Scientific Vs The Secretary to Government

C.Selvam Vs The District Collector

The Public Information Officer Vs F.Anthony Dass

G.Kumararaj Vs The Deputy General Manager(O)

Mrs.M.Manimozhi (47 years) Vs The District Collector