@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.K. Sasidharan, J.@mdashThis writ petition has been preferred for issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner on account of the unfortunate death of his son by way of electrocution and to take both departmental and criminal action against respondents 2 to 6 for their negligence.
2. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as under:
Petitioner''s case:
The petitioner is a tea shop owner and his shop is located at No. 79, Azad Road, Thorappadi, Vellore about 100 metres away from his house. The petitioner had one son and two daughters and he was maintaining the family with the meagre income derived from the tea shop. While so, the Tamil Nadu Noon Meals Employees State Conference was organised in Vellore under the leadership of Tmt. Indira Kumari, the then Minister for Social Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu. All the preparatory and decorative works were started and carried out even ten days before the date of the convention. Since the Chief Minister was to be the Chief Guest of the said conference, organisers had arranged massive and festive decorations to felicitate her visit. They have put casuarina barricade on both sides of the road from Thorappadi to the venue of the conference at Vellore. They have also put up number of decorative arches, banners, paintings, boards, illuminary, flourecent and fancy decorative lights on both sides of the road. The organisers have also put up tube lights on casuarina poles for every ten feet on both sides of the road covering the entire stretch of the road from Thorappadi to Vellore. Further they have also pasted decorative colour papers on thin iron ropes/wires and tied them with the casuarina poles. All the lights were put on from the morning itself on 6.12.1995 before the arrival of the then Chief Minister at Thorappadi by helicopter. Electricity supply for the lights were directly taken from the street lines and with the full connivance of the Government officials.
3. As scheduled, the Chief Minister arrived attended the function and after the conclusion of the meeting, the Chief Minister returned to Thorappadi by car and then proceeded to Chennai by helicopter. The Honouarble Chief Minister crossed the Azad road at about 5.00 p.m. and on hearing the noise of the helicopter, the only son of the petitioner by name Dinakaran, aged nine years, left the house and came towards the tea shop of the petitioner at Azad Road with an anxiety to see the then Chief Minister. The petitioner''s son entered the Azad Road and when he was just four shops away from the tea shop of the petitioner, the decorative colour papers pasted in iron rope/wire hanging from the casuarina pole obstructed and rolled down in his foot and he was pulled down on the floor with heavy shakes and shivering. The child cried and shouted for help and on hearing the noise, the petitioner rushed to the spot to rescue his son. When the petitioner tried to remove the iron wire rolled down in his son''s foot believing that it was only an ordinary decorative iron wire, the petitioner experienced heavy electric shock and before realising that electricity was passing through the decorative iron wire, he was thrown away on the floor and became unconscious. He regained his consciousness only in Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore after four days of the incident and only thereafter the petitioner came to know as to what had really happened on 6.12.1995 as well as the instantaneous death of his son in the said incident.
4. The petitioner was informed that his son was also taken to the Christian Medical College Hospital in a van by a Security Officer posted for the security of the then Chief Minister and after arrival at the hospital, the petitioner''s son was declared dead. The petitioner also sustained electric burn injuries in his right wrist, left arm, chest and scapular region and he was an inpatient in the hospital from 6.12.1995 to 16.12.1995. Subsequently plastic surgery was done to cure the burn injuries by grafting the flesh from his thigh.
5. The accident was an unexpected event in the family and the petitioner was not having any income for the maintenance of the family and he had faced untold suffering and hardship for mobilising money to meet out the expenses for post-mortem and funeral expenses for his son as well as for his medical treatment. With much difficulty the wife of the petitioner arranged money by taking loan on heavy interest. The matter was reported to the police and a case in Crime No. 1156 of 1995 was registered before the Vellore South Police Station at Bagayam Out Post. The post-mortem report of the minor declared that the child died of cardiagenic shock due to electrocution. Similarly in the discharge summary issued to the petitioner by the Christian Medical College, it has been stated that the petitioner sustained electric burns while trying to rescue his eight years old son, who had caught in a live wire and the petitioner had sustained burns in his right hand, left arm, chest as well as in scapular region.
6. The wife of the petitioner made a representation dated 12.12.1995 to the Chief Minister''s Special Grievance Cell for suitable action as well as for payment of compensation with a copy to the District Collector, Vellore. Since there was no reply to the representation, the petitioner''s wife again made a representation to the Chief Minister on 6.3.1996, but no reply has been received. However, ultimately a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the District Collector, Vellore as compensation from the Chief Minister''s General Relief Fund, but with that meagre amount the petitioner was not in a position to repay the borrowed amount of Rs. 30,000/- on interest, which was spent for the purpose of treatment.
7. The incident took place only due to the negligence of the respondents towards public safety. The respondents have failed to confirm and ensure as to whether the required safety and precautionary measures had been followed and adopted in putting up various decorative structures and lights by the organisers of the conference before granting permission for putting up such structures and before giving electricity connection for other electrical fittings. According to the petitioner, the incident was solely on account of the negligence of the respondents and as such the respondents are bound to pay compensation for the unfortunate death of his son as well as injury caused to the petitioner and accordingly, he has filed the present writ petition.
Defence:
8. The District Collector, Vellore had filed counter affidavit on behalf of all the respondents wherein it was admitted that the conference on 6.12.1995 was convened by the Tamil Nadu Noon Meals Employees Association and the Honourable Chief Minister participated in the said function as Chief Guest. The organisers have also erected casuarina poles on either side of the road and the same were tied with small iron rope from Helipad to Fort Maidan and were provided with decorative disco papers. Such arrangements have been made only by the then ruling political party cadres and neither the Noon Meal Employees nor any other departmental staffs were involved in carrying out those arrangements. After the function was over, the then Chief Minister left Vellore and subsequently the public gathered there tried to remove the casuarina poles for their own use. While the mob was trying to remove the casuarina poles, a small iron rope pasted with decorated disco paper tied to one of the casuarina pole was cut and touched the live line. Temporary electricity supply has been effected in two places in the name of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Vellore to illuminate the conference area. The tragic incident involving the petitioner and his son happened only on account of the action of the public in removing the casuarina poles.
9. From the complaint preferred before the police as well as from the post-mortem report it was confirmed that the petitioner''s son died due to electric shock. The petitioner also suffered minor injuries but his son died on the spot. The decorations using casuarina poles and iron ropes were not arranged by the District Administration and as such the District Administration was in no way connected with the said arrangement. The arrangement was made by the then ruling political party cadres without obtaining permission from the District authorities. After receiving information about the accident, the District Administration instructed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to cut off the supply immediately and accordingly the supply was cut off in that area to avoid any further casualty among the public. Since the incident happened only on account of the mob action in removing the casuarina poles and the contact of the iron rope attached to the casuarina pole with the electricity line passing through that area, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner as they were no way responsible for the incident and accordingly, the second respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Contentions:
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the State is having an obligation to see that the public functions are conducted in an orderly manner and for conducting meetings prior permission of the District Administration was absolutely necessary. While permitting the Tamil Nadu Noon Meals Employees Association to conduct the conference at Vellore and for the said purpose to allow them to put casuarina poles on either side of the road, the respondents should have taken steps to avoid untoward incidents. Learned Counsel further contended that since the Chief Minister was participating in the function, the respondents should have anticipated that there would be large crowd in that area and as such they should have taken all the measures to see that no incident happens in that area in connection with the meeting. Since the respondents miserably failed to protect the life of the petitioner''s son, the respondents cannot be heard to say that they are not liable to compensate the petitioner.
11. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that no liability could be fastened on the respondents inasmuch as the entire incident had happened only on account of the action taken by the members of a particular political party in connection with the arrangement made for the then Chief Minister and since the State was not in any way connected with the said function, the State is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
12. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel and I have also gone through the pleadings as well as the materials available on record.
Factual Analysis:
13. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly averred that all the preparatory and decorative works were started and carried out ten days before the date of convention, as the then Chief Minister was the Chief Guest for the function. It was the further case of the petitioner that the organisers have put up casuarina poles on both sides of the road from Thorappadi to the conference venue and they have also put up number of decorative arches, banners, paintings, boards, illuminary, flourecent and fancy lights on both sides of the road all along. There were casuarina poles for every ten feet on both sides of the road covering the entire stretch of the road and tube lights were put on those casuarina poles. There was no denial of any of these averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Therefore it is evident that the erection of casuarina poles on both sides of the road was not the act done on the day of the meeting but was done ten days before the convention. It is also not in dispute that temporary electricity connection was effected in two places in the name of the Public Works Department to illuminate the conference area. This fact clearly shows that the function was organised by none other than the Government as otherwise there was no necessity for the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department to take temporary supply from the electricity department to illuminate the conference area.
14. The authority to grant permission for conduct of public meetings as well as to permit the organisers to put up casuarina barricades on both sides of the road vests with the District Administration. The town Vellore is a Municipality and as such for putting up pandal or any other structure in a public street, permission of the Municipality has also to be taken.
15. Section 183 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act clearly provides that licence has to be taken from the Municipality for temporary erection of pandals and other structures in a public street vested in it on such terms and conditions and for such period. Sub-section (4) of Section 183 provides that no licence shall be granted if the projection, construction or occupation is likely to be injurious to health or cause public inconvenience or otherwise materially interfere with the use of the road as such. Section 321 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act mandates the Executive Authority of the Municipality to inspect the place in respect of which a licence or permission was required under the Municipalities Act and to take action, in case the place was used without a licence and in the event of grant of a licence, to satisfy himself as to whether the licence conditions were contravened. The Collector has also got a supervisory role in respect of a Municipality as is evident from Sections 34 and 37 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.
16. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent clearly shows that there was no supervisory power exercised by the District Collector as well as the police in the conduct of the public function on 6.12.1995. There was no indication in the counter affidavit as to whether permission was taken by the Tamil Nadu Noon Meals Employees Association to conduct the public function on 6.12.1995 and for erecting casuarina poles on both sides of the road throughout the way travelled by the Chief Minister from Helipad to the place of conference. Therefore it is evident that the District Administration were silent spectators and even though no permission was sought for by the organisers, they were permitted to conduct the meeting as well as to erect casuarina poles touching the electricity lines. The Electricity Department was also at fault as they have not taken precautionary measures to see that none of the casuarina poles erected on the side of the road actually touched the electrical lines so as to become a source of danger to the public. The District Administration were aware that the dignitary to take part in the function was none other than the Chief Minister of the State and as such there would be big crowd to witness the function and to see the Chief Minister. The function was really an official function which was found from the averments in the counter affidavit about the electricity supply taken by the Executive Engineer to illuminate the conference area. In case conference was organised by the Tamil Nadu Noon Meal Employees only, there was no requirement for the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department to illuminate the conference area after taking temporary electricity connection from the electricity department. Therefore it was not a private function attended by the Chief Minister, but for all purposes it was only a public function. In any case, the District Administration as well as the Government cannot wash their hands by saying that the arrangements including the erection of casuarina poles were made by the political party cadres without obtaining any kind of permission from the District Authorities. The statement made by the District Collector to the effect that no permission was taken from the District Authorities clearly shows the dereliction of duty on the part of the District Administration.
17. Law is supreme and it is applicable to everybody whether it would be the members of the ruling party or opposition. When the statute prescribes that prior permission of the District Administration as well as police should be taken for conduct of public function and for erection of casuarina poles on the side of the road and also to make a hole in the street, such act should not have been permitted without taking permission from the authorities. In fact Section 186 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act clearly provides that no person shall make a hole or cause any obstruction in any street, unless, he previously obtains the permission of the Executive Authority and complies with such conditions as that officer may impose. Section 186(2) also provides that in case of grant of permission to make a hole or cause obstruction in a street, such person shall, at his own expense cause such hole or obstruction to be sufficiently fenced and enclosed, until the hole or obstruction is filled up or removed and shall cause such hole or obstruction to be sufficiently lighted during the night.
18. No casuarina pole could be erected unless the organisers makes holes on the side of the road and the affidavit of the petitioner proceeds that there were casuarina poles in every ten feet on both sides of the road covering the entire stretch of the road travelled by the Honourable Chief Minister. These acts on the part of the organisers of the conference or by the officials of the Government cannot be done over night and it could have been done only in a couple of days. Therefore the District Administration cannot plead ignorance of the action taken by the organisers or by other concerned for putting up the casuarina poles as well as decorations using electricity. There is no factual dispute in the present matter with respect to the incident. It is an admitted position that the petitioner''s son died of electrocution in the incident happened on 6.12.1995 and the petitioner also sustained injuries. The medical certificate as well as the post-mortem report clearly shows the cause of death and in fact the same has been admitted by the second respondent in the counter affidavit.
19. The respondents have not challenged the negligence as well as the quantum claimed by the petitioner and their only contention is that the District Administration was in no way responsible for the incident and as such they cannot be made liable for compensation. The inaction as well as dereliction of duty on the part of the District Administration as well as the other respondents are writ large. The second respondent has clearly admitted about the erection of casuarina poles on both sides of the road as well as putting up the tube lights on such poles and also the other illumination and fancy decorations done for the said conference. The fact that no permission was taken by the organisers as well as the ruling political party were also admitted by the District Administration. The electricity connection taken for illuminating the conference area by the Public Works Department has also been admitted in the counter affidavit. Therefore it is clear that the District Administration had their own part in the conduct of the function and though the function was styled as a State Conference of the Tamil Nadu Noon Meals Employees Association but in fact it was only an extended Government function. Even in case the District Administration has not taken part in the arrangement of the conference still they are liable as they have not discharged their duty and miserably failed to protect the life of the citizens.
20. The District Collector has clearly admitted that no permission was taken from the District Administration for the meeting in question as well as for making arrangements for the function. The entire route travelled by the Chief Minister was decorated by putting up casuarina barrigates on both sides. It is evident that considerable damage has been done on both sides of the road. Without the knowledge of the District Administration no such work could have been carried out by the organisers of the function. The State Highway is maintained by the Public Works Department and the very permission for taking electricity connection was taken by the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department which is also a pointer to show that the entire function was arranged by none other than the Government machinery.
Article 21:
21. Right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a valuable right available to a citizen. The State is under the legal obligation to protect the life and property of citizens and the State is also obliged to carry out the constitutional obligations. It should be the endeavour of the State as well as the authorities to protect the life of its citizens. It is also the duty of the State to avoid any of the circumstance or situation which would be a source of danger to the life of citizens. The State cannot be heard to say that since the act was on account of the mob, the State cannot be held liable or responsible for such action. The Government also cannot shift their responsibility by contending that the negligent act was done by the members of the ruling political party without taking permission from the District Administration.
22. The issue regarding the liability of the State in case of loss of life or damage to the property were considered by a Full Bench of this Court in P.P.M. Thangaiah Nadar Firm and 4 Ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and 3 Ors. 2006 4 LW 560 and after considering catena of decisions on the point, the Full Bench observed thus:
25. Thus a conspectus of the decisions of several High Courts and even those of the Supreme Court makes it clear that it is the Constitutional obligation of the State to protect the life, liberty and property of a person and where the State, that is to say its machinery without any justification fails in such duty resulting in loss to a person the State cannot avoid its responsibility by taking refuge under a plea that the damage was done by the rioteers and not by State''s machinery.
26. The allied question is the Forum where the remedy is to be sought for. This question is again a fiercely fought legal battle as evident from several decisions of various High Courts and the Supreme Court. The decisions already analysed indicate that depending upon the facts and circumstances, remedy can be sought for under the public law remedy concept by invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or even that of the Supreme Court under Article 32.
35. While considering the question of public law remedy, a note of caution was appended by the Supreme Court in
8. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law. A claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution is undoubtedly an acknowledged remedy for protection and enforcement of such right and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy, provided for the enforcement of fundamental right is distinct from, and in addition to the remedy in private law for damages for the tort, as was held by the Court in Nilabati Behera. It is in fact an innovation of a new tool with the court which are the protectors of the civil liberty of the citizens and the court, in exercise of the same, would be in a position to grant compensation when it comes to the conclusion that there has been a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21. It is in this context, this Court has observed:
The citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the courts exercising writ jurisdiction.
9. The courts having the obligation to satisfy the social aspiration of the citizens have to apply the tool and grant compensation as damages in public law proceedings. Consequently when the court moulds the relief in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights and grants compensation, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. But it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty by every public officer would commend the court to grant compensation in a petition under Articles 226 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding. The court in exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, therefore, would not award damages against public authorities merely because they have made some order which turns out to be ultra vires or there has been some inaction in the performance of the duties unless there is malice or conscious abuse. Before exemplary damages can be awarded it must be shown that some fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the public functionaries and that the sufferer was a helpless victim of that act.
38. Now the inevitable end of the journey or may be beginning of another. In view of the various decisions noticed by us and many other decisions referred to in such decisions, the following conclusions can be reached. The State is not necessarily liable in every case where there is loss of life or damage to the property during rioting. Where, however, it is established that the officers of the State ordained with duty of maintaining law and order have failed to protect the life, liberty and property of person and such failure amounts to dereliction of duty, the State would be liable to pay compensation to the victim. Such liability can be enforced through Public Law remedy or Common Law remedy. Where, necessary facts to establish culpable negligence on the part of the officials are available, the High Court under Article 226 can issue appropriate direction. Where, however, the main aspect relating to culpable negligence of the officer is seriously disputed, filing of suit may be more appropriate remedy. No hard and fast rule can be laid down on these aspects and obviously the availability of remedy under Article 226 would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Compensation for loss to the property can also be claimed under Article 226 and merely because right to property has been deleted from the Chapter of Fundamental Rights and has been recognised as a Constitutional right, would not disentitle the High Court to examine that question in any appropriate case.
23. In the Counter affidavit filed by the District Collector it was indicated that arrangements were made by the members of the Ruling party without prior permission from the administration. The District Administration seems to be under the impression that political parties are above the Constitution and regulatory laws are not applicable to them. The authority should realize that they are bound to protect the life and property of the citizen and nobody much less political parties should be allowed to curtail the freedom granted to the citizen by the Constitution. The State cannot be a silent spectator when there is an attempt to interfere with the freedom of the citizen. Political parties are having a solemn responsibility to the society and to the public at large. After all the aim of every political party in a democratic political set up would be to advance the socio-econimic development of the people of the country.
Section 29-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951
24. Part IV-A of the Representation of People Act 1951 deals with registration of political parties and Section 29A enables an Association or Body of individual citizens of India calling itself a political party to make an application before the Election Commission of India for its registration as a political party. The expectation from a political party has been clearly indicated in Sub-Clause 5 of Section 29A as it mandates that the Memorandum of Rules and Regulations of the body shall contain specific provision that the association or body shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as per law established as well as to the principles of Socialism Secularism and democracy and also to uphold the sovereignity ,unity and integrity of India. In the absence of an undertaking given by the body to bear true allegiance to the Constitution of India, as provided by Section 29A(5) of the Representations of Peoples Act, even Election Commission was not empowered to register a body as a political party inview of the proviso added to Section 29(7) of the Act. Therefore the political parties agree that they would abide by the Constitution as well as the law of the land. Such being the case, State cannot plead helplessness when it comes to the activities of political parties under the pretext that such parties have acted in defiance of law. The authority who have registered a body as a political party has also got the authority to cancel the registration in case it was demonstrated that the Association or body of individuals violated the provisions of the Constitution or committed acts which would be a threat to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy as well as to the sovereignity unity and integrity of India. Every political party whether it be a national party or a regional party should uphold the Constitution and respect the laws of the land.
25. The Association or body of individuals who got themselves registered as a political party must function as a responsible organisation and their motto should be serve the people as well as to provide good governance in case they come to power. Political parties are not expected to indulge in activities which would have the effect of violating the laws of the country and inteference in the exercise of fundamental rights by the citizens. In the event of the action of the Association or body of individuals infringes the fundamental rights of the citizens it would enable the State to take action against them such parties and in case the state fails in discharging their responsibility in such matters, the State also would be liable for action and it would not be a defence for the state in such cases to contend that the administration was not in a position to take action, as the Association responsible for such a situation was none other than a political party.
26. Even though body of individuals and Association spent considerable amount for conducting conference nobody cares about the family of those who lost their breadwinner or dear one or property on account of the unlawful actions of the organisers of the function like the one in the instant case. In the unfortunate incident involving the minor son of the petitioner, the petitioner and his family suffered undue hardship and neither the ruling party who organised the function nor the Opposition came forward with a helping hand to redress the grievance of the family. The incident reveals a very sorry state of affairs and it is high time that the body of individuals or Associations registered u/s 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act makes change in their way of functioning. There should be a change in the mind set and while enjoying the freedom it should be ensured that it does not interfere with the rights of others.
27. The District Administration in their counter affidavit attempted to wash their hands by pleading ignorance of the entire episode and describing the incident as a spontaneous action by the crowd to remove the Casurina poles after the departure of the Chief Minister. The District Collector and the other officials shriked their responsibility and a plain reading of the counter affidavit clearly shows that there was no proper planning by the District Administration with respect to the visit of the Chief Minister and there was a clear derelection of duty on the part of the administration. It was evidently a government sponsored function and as such it is too late for the respondents to contend that everything was done by the then ruling party without their permission. The very fact that the electricity service was provided to the venue of the function at the instance of the Public Works Department proves beyond doubt that the organisers of the function were none other than the Government and official machinery was instrumental in providing casurina poles barricade and illumination in the meeting area as well as in the route travelled by the Chief Minister.
28. In
45. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the courts too much, as the protector and custodian of the indefeasible rights of the citizens. The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A court of law cannot close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities. Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim _ civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at time perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the breadwinner of the family.
29. The factual matrix as projected in the writ petition clearly shows that the respondents were negligent and there was clear dereliction of duty on their part which gives an action for compensation. Because of the negligence and carelessness of the respondents the valuable life of a child was taken away at the tender age of nine. The petitioner also sustained injuries in the incident and he was also hospitalised for a period of eleven days and plastic surgery was also done to cure the burn injuries by grafting the flesh from his thigh. Therefore the petitioner has made out a case for award of compensation under public law remedy both on account of the death of his son as well as the injury sustained by him.
Principles for determination of compensation:
30. Now coming to the issue regarding fixation of quantum, it would depend upon so many factors and the assessment of compensation cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. Each case depends upon the factual situation of the particular case and there cannot be a universal rule in such cases for payment of compensation. The principles governing payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act or under the Workmens Compensation Act could also be taken as the basis to fix the quantum.
31. Admittedly the son of the petitioner was aged 9 years at the time of the incident. The Apex Court in New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Satendar and Ors. 2006 13 SCC 60 by following the earlier judgment in
32. With respect to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it was found that he was an inpatient in the Christian Medical College, Vellore for a period of 11 days and plastic surgery was also done. By considering the pain and suffering, treatment in the hospital as well as loss of wages for the period, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation.
Direction:
33. Accordingly the first respondent is directed to pay a total sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees two lakhs ten thousand only) to the petitioner by way of compensation with interest at 7.5% from the date of filing the Writ petition and such payment shall be made within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
34. The Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
