Disposed

S.Murugan v. the Director

Madras HC13 Jul 2023WP/29332/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for a minor's drowning in an airport water tank. Finding conflicting stated facts preventing a determination of negligence, the Court held that the matter required fact-finding investigation best suited for a civil court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with no costs; civil court jurisdiction suggested for remedy.

S.Murugan Vs the Director — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No.29332 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.07.2023

¶4

CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

W.P. No.29332 of 2013

S.Murugan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director Airport Authority of India Meenambakkam, Chennai - 27

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police S-2 Airport Police Station Meenambakkam, Chennai

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

(R2 suo motu impleaded vide order dated 15.02.2023 in W.P. No.29332 of 2013)

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as compensation to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran

¶15

For Respondents : M/s.Sarathy, Arun for R1 Mr.G.Ameedius, Govt. Advocate for R2

¶16

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

¶17

_________ Page 1 of 4_

¶18

W.P. No.29332 of 2013

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner seeks a compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs for the drowning of his sixteen years old son in an uncovered manhole in the precincts of the airport. That the petitioner's son has passed away very unfortunately on 09.12.2012 in the water tank within the precincts of the airport is not disputed. But it is resisted by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner's son has entered a prohibited area and he brought to the notice of the court two conflicting stands of the petitioner one in the affidavit and another in his complaint statement to the police, as found in the FIR.

¶21

In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, it is averred by the petitioner that his son along with his friends passed through the damaged fencing of the airport authority and were playing near the water tank and he very unfortunately fell into the water tank and got drowned. Whereas, the FIR says that the cricket ball fell in the water tank and the petitioner's son entered the water tank to pick the ball and in the process he drowned.

¶22

If the petitioner's son has died due to the negligence of the respondent,

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

W.P. No.29332 of 2013

¶26

necessarily they will be liable to the petitioner. If on the other hand, the petitioner's son has drowned into a prohibited territory of the airport authority, necessarily the airport authority cannot take the blame. Having stated thus, even as to the occurrence, there are slightly two different versions. Since it requires an investigation of facts, this court considers that it may not be conveniently done in a writ proceedings and the petitioner may approach the appropriate

¶27

civil court for remedy if he so desirous.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

13.07.2023

Asr

1.The Inspector of Police S-2 Airport Police Station Meenambakkam, Chennai

¶33

2.The Government Pleader High Court, Madras

¶34

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

¶35

_________ Page 3 of 4_

¶36

W.P. No.29332 of 2013

¶37

N.SESHASAYEE, J.,

¶38

Asr

¶39

W.P. No.29332 of 2013

¶40

13.07.2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________ Page 4 of 4_

S.Murugan v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Murugan v. the Director

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

C.Natarajan Vs The District Collector

Er.R.Niranjan Vs Director

Kowsiya Vs Regional Passport Officer

Annaii Medical College and Hospital Vs The Registrar

Tamizhaga Cable Tv Operators Vs Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable Tv Corproation Limited

The Kgisl Trust Vs The Government of TamilNadu