Dismissed

Pauniraj (Died), v. Union of India

Madras HC22 Aug 2022WP(MD)/13162/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought Writ of Mandamus for Rs. 50 lakhs compensation for the rash negligence of an Indian Coast Guard vessel causing their son's death. The Court dismissed the petition due to lack of material evidence proving the Coast Guard's negligence and the unchallenged final report exonerating the vessel.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No costs awarded to the petitioner.

Pauniraj (Died), Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.13162 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

ORDER RESERVED ON : 25.07.2022

¶4

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 22 .08.2022

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD).No.13162 of 2012

1.Pauniraj( died)

2.Jerald Mary

3.Leoba

4.Maria Jenifer

5.Innacivitharan

¶13

6.Arockiagosma

¶14

7.Rayappan

¶15

8.Sukirtham ....Petitioners

¶16

( Petitioners 2 to 8 are substituted as legal heirs of the deceased petitioner vide Court order dated 21.04.2021)

¶17

¶18

1.Union of India Represented by its Secretary Ministry of Defence Government of India 101-A, South Block New Delhi

¶19

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

¶20

1/10

¶21

W.P(MD).No.13162 of 2012

¶22

2.Director General Indian Coast Guard Coast Guard Headquarters National Stadium Complex New Delhi 110 001

¶23

3.The Inspector General Commander Coast Guard Region (East) Head Quarters Indian Coast Guard Regional (East) Rajaji Salai, Near Napier Bridge Chennai -9

¶24

4.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Chief Secretary Fort St.George, Chennai Tamil Nadu

¶25

5.The District Collector Collectorate Ramanathapurm District

¶26

.....Respondents

¶27

Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.09.2012.

¶28

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Jeyasingh For R4 & R5 : Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader

¶29

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

¶30

2/10

¶31

W.P(MD).No.13162 of 2012

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus for payment of compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- based upon the representation dated 05.09.2012.

¶34

2.According to the petitioner, he is a fisherman having two sons namely Innasi and Kalvin. Both the sons have volunteered to go for fishing along with three other fellow fishermen on a small fishing boat bearing Registration No.TN-10-WV-1844 on 10.05.2012. While they were on their way towards north of Pamban Sea, nearly 10 nautical miles away from Ariyaman Seashore Park, they stationed and were engaged in fishing at about 08.45 P.M in the midsea of Indian Territorial water. According to the petitioner, a vessel belonging to the Indian Coast Guard without any light or horn has negligently as well as rashly collided against the small fishing boat and it was damaged into pieces and all the crew members got drowned. Except his son Kalvin, all others were rescued by others. One of the survivor had lodged a complaint on 11.05.2012 at about 12.15 p.m before the Marine Police, Mandapam in respect of missing of the petitioner's son Kalvin and an F.I.R was registered in Crime No.11 of 2012 under Sections 280 and 337 I.P.C. The decomposed body of the petitioner's son was found and the

¶35

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

¶36

3/10

¶37

W.P(MD).No.13162 of 2012

¶38

postmortem revealed that he died due to Asphyxia.

¶39

3.According to the petitioner, his son was aged about 18 years. He had secured good marks in the higher examination and he was a hale and healthy young man. The State Government of Tamil Nadu had paid solatium of Rs.5,00,000/- lakhs out of Chief Minister's Relief Fund. However, the said payment is not sufficient and hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking compensation from the respondents 1 to 3 herein.

¶40

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that only due to rash and negligent attitude of the Indian Coast Guard, the fishing boat got damaged and it had drowned. Hence, the respondents 1 and 3 are liable to pay compensation. The petitioner had made a representation to the said authorities on 05.09.2012. Since there was no response, the present writ petition has been filed. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the case was transferred to CBCID. The CBCID have examined all the survivors and all of them have unanimously submitted that a white colour ship belonging to the Coast Guard had dashed against their fishing vessel which had resulted in damage and drowning of Kalvin. However, the CBCID official had closed the investigation by filing a final report on 19.04.2013 on the ground that it is an undetected case. The CBCID officials https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

4/10

¶42

W.P(MD).No.13162 of 2012

¶43

have only examined the survivors and not rescuers who were fully aware of the Indian Coast Guard vessel. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the enquiry conducted by the Coast Guard authorities had enquired only one Coast Guard Vessel, Rajshree and other Coast Guard Vessels have not been subjected to any enquiry to find out whether any other vessel belonging to the Coast Guard were involved in the accident or not. He had further contended several similar incidents have taken place in the past involving the Vessel belonging to the Coast Guard and all of them have gone undetected and the respondents 1 to 3 have not been made liable for the damage caused to the fishing vessel or to the death of fisherman concerned. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition and the compensation as prayed for may be granted.

¶44

5.The respondents 1 to 3 relied upon their counter and the typed set of papers and contended that the Indian Coastal Guard Ship Rajshree is no way connected to the occurrence which took place at 08.45 p.m on 10.05.2012. The Indian Coastal Guard vessel received information about drowning of a vallam only on 11.05.2012 at about 07.40 hours so as to rescue one of the missing crew. After detailed search for a long time, they were called back to the Mandapam at about 6.00 a.m on 12.05.2012. The respondents 1 to 3

¶45

further contended that the Board of enquiry was convened by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

5/10

¶47

W.P(MD).No.13162 of 2012

¶48

Commander, Headquarters Coast Guard Region (East), Chennai on 12.05.2012. The enquiry was conducted between 14.05.2012 and 18.06.2012 and 22 witnesses were examined including four surviving crew members. As per the finding of the said enquiry, all the five crew members who were fast asleep were suddenly thrown over, when hit by heavy sea waves while fishing in open sea. It was specifically contended that on the side of the respondents 1 to 3, the Indian Coast Guard ship was not at all involved in the said accident and the said fact has been established in the internal enquiry conducted by them. Hence, they are not liable to pay compensation.

¶49

6.The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 relying upon their counter contended that CBCID has conducted a detailed enquiry. After recording the statement of the surviving crew members, they have filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramnad. In the said report, it has been stated that some other vessel having spear shaped edge in the backside hit on the fishing boat. If really the coast guard vessel had dashed against the fishing boat, the damage would have been huge. But, in the present case, the damage was of a lesser extent and as per expert report it is clear that the Indian Coastal Guard Ship had not hit on the wooden fishing boat. The learned counsel had further contended that at the time of accident,

¶50

all five crew members were asleep. After the accident had took place, they https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

6/10

¶52

W.P(MD).No.13162 of 2012

¶53

have seen a Indian Coastal Guard Ship nearby and hence, they were under the impression that the Coastal Guard Ship alone has caused the damage. The final report was also served upon the writ petitioner and there was no challenge to the said final report. The learned counsel had further contended that the State Government is no way responsible for the said accident or death of the petitioner's son. However, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund through the fifth respondent. Therefore, they are not eligible to receive any further compensation.

¶54

7.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶55

8.There is no dispute that the petitioner's son along with other crew members had ventured into the sea on the fateful day of 10.05.2012. It is also not in dispute that the fishing boat had met with an accident about 08.45. p.m on 10.05.2012 and got damaged and drowned. Except the son of the petitioner namely Kalvin, all other crew members have been rescued by others. The above said facts are not in dispute.

¶56

9.The petitioner had contended that the Indian Coastal Guard Vessel

¶57

had damaged the fishing boat which resulted in the death of his son. He had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

7/10

¶59

W.P(MD).No.13162 of 2012

¶60

relied upon the statement made by the co-crew members under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. In the said statement, all of them have unanimously stated that a white colour Coastal Guard Ship had dashed their fishing boat rashly and negligently without any light or horn.

¶61

10.A perusal of the above said statement clearly indicates that all the crew members were asleep and only after waking up due to the accident and after being threw into the sea, they have seen a white colour Coastal Guard Ship to pass through. Hence, it is clear from the final report of the CBCID that the crew members were asleep and they have not seen the accident. As per the reports of the experts that the accident was made by a vessel having spear shaped edge in the back. The said expert report further states that if a big ship like Indian Coastal Guard Ship had hit on a wooden craft, the damage would have been much more in nature. Hence, the expert report and the final report filed by the Commander, Headquarters Coast Guard Region (East) Chennai have ruled out the involvement of the Indian Coastal Guard. It is pertinent to point out that this final report has not been protested or challenged.

¶62

Though it is an unfortunate case of death of a young man of 18

¶63

years old with good future prospects, this Court finds that it is difficult to fix https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

8/10

¶65

W.P(MD).No.13162 of 2012

¶66

the liability upon the respondents 1 to 3 for want of material records. There is no proof whatsoever that the Indian Coastal Guard Ship was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused an impact over the ill-fated fishing boat which caused damage to the boat as well as the death of petitioner's son. When there is no evidence relating to the impact of the Indian Coastal Guard Vessel, the question of imposing liability upon them to pay compensation does not arise.

¶67

12.In view of the above said facts, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶68

22 .08.2022

¶69

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No msa

¶70

¶71

The Chief Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai Tamil Nadu

¶72

2.The District Collector Collectorate Ramanathapurm District

¶73

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

¶74

9/10

¶75

W.P(MD).No.13162 of 2012

¶76

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶77

msa

¶78

Pre-delivery order made in

¶79

W.P.(MD).No.13162 of 2012

¶80

22.08.2022

¶81

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

¶82

10/10

Pauniraj (Died), v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pauniraj (Died), v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Selvaraj Vs the Sub Registrar

P.Jeyashanmugam, Vs the Tahsildar

M/S. S.K.N. Boarding and Vs the Commissionr

Mariappan Vs Marudaiveeran (Died)

Surya Kumar, Vs the District Registrar (Admn.)

V.Ramalingam Vs the Secretary to Govt.