IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.06.2009 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM W.A.No.1386 of 2004 M.Parimala .. Appellant -vs- 1. The District Collector, South Arcot Vallallar District, Cuddalore. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur, Trichy District. 3. The Tahsildar, Perambalur Taluk, Perambalur, Trichy District. .. Respondents Appeal against the order made in W.P.No.14175 of 1995 dated 16.7.2002. For Appellant : Mr.A.Meenakshi Sundaram For Respondents : Mr.M.Dhandapani, Spl.G.P., : Assisted by M.P.Gurunathan, G.A./RR1 to 3 * * * * * J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.)
This is a claim for compensation for the death of the appellant’s husband, Murugan, in the floods caused in Vellar river. There is no dispute that similarly afflicted families were awarded Rs.50,000/- from the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and Rs.10,000/- from the Chief Minister’ Relief Fund on 15.8.1995, i.e., on Independence Day. In spite of the facts being undisputed, the respondents took the plea that because of the inability of giving any reason beyond doubt for his death, they would not pay the petitioner her compensation for the death of her husband Murugan in the floods.
2.On 9.12.1993, the Village Administrative Officer, Jagannathan, lodged a complaint with the Sub Inspector, Kunnam police station that Murugan, S/o.Muthusamy, aged 35 years, of Vasishtapuram village, who at about 8.00 a.m. on 8.12.1993 stepped into the Vellaru river proceeding to the Thittakudi Sandhai and due to the sudden floods, he was dragged away and was thrown ashore near Mettu Colony, Nalloor North, in the morning of 9.12.1993. The complaint states that he had died because of the floods. The relatives had taken the dead body to their house. Therefore, the complaint was lodged for appropriate action. A case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in Crime No.329 of 1993. The complaint was also forwarded to the Tahsildar, Perambalur. The Sub-Inspector, on receipt of this complaint, forwarded the same to the Tahsildar, Perambalur and this communication reads as follows:-
“Murugan, who was living along with his family in Vasishtapuram village, was selling cattle and earning his livelihood; he had a wife Parimala, aged about 28 years, son Raji aged 10 years and a daughter Rani aged 6 years; on 8.12.1993, because of the incessant rain, waters in the Vellar river flooded near Thittakudi border; the Vellar flows across one furlong south; the deceased Murugan, while he was walking across, lost his balance and was carried away in the floods; on investigation, the Sub Inspector was of the opinion that the deceased Murugan was carried away in floods and since it was in a decomposed state, after ascertaining the reason, they handed over the body to the relatives. We extract the following, since they are relevant:-
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
The above statement is translated as follows:-
” Therefore, the dead body of the deceased Murugan, S/o.Muthuvel, who drowned in the floods, was handed over since there was no doubt regarding the cause of death.”
3.Thereafter, on 15.11.1994, the petitioner submitted an application for compensation. This was rejected by the impugned proceedings in R.O.C.No.1, 111794/93 dated 16.11.1994 on the ground that it is not possible to state beyond reasonable doubt the reason for Murugan’s death. Thereafter, she gave an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, where again the facts were stated. The Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of this application, requested the Tahsildar, Perambalur, to take appropriate steps and to inform the applicant of the steps taken. Frustrated in her attempts to receive the compensation, she filed the writ petition.
4.The learned single Judge was of the opinion that since the petitioner had not satisfied the minimum requirement, it is not possible to grant her relief since the compensation should be given from public funds.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submitted that there is no dispute on the side of the respondents that those who had suffered on account of the floods were given compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and Rs.10,000/- from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund and 7 families of Kattumannar koil and Thittakudi Taluk were awarded compensation on the Independence Day, i.e. on 15.8.1995 and there was no justification for denying the petitioner her compensation. The learned counsel referred to the complaint filed by the Village Administrative Officer and the communication forwarded by the Sub Inspector himself to show that the cause of death of Murugan is apparent and admitted by the officials mentioned above and therefore, there was no justification to deny the petitioner her relief.
6.The learned Government Pleader submitted that because of the highly decomposed state of the body, it was not possible to ascertain the cause of death and only if it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the person died on account of the floods, the survivors are entitled to compensation.
7.We are unable to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the State. The complaint and the letter from the Sub Inspector are enough to justify the entitlement of the appellant. On 9.12.1993, even before the order giving compensation to the afflicted families was passed, the Village Administrative Officer has clearly written that Murugan was carried away in the floods and met his death. The Sub Inspector has also stated that it was only after ascertaining the reason for the death that the body was handed over to the relatives and that he was carried away in the floods. It is true that post-mortem was not conducted. When the cause of death is admitted in the above documents, the post-mortem is only a formality. This is not like other cases of unnatural death, this is a case of death due to natural calamity. The post-mortem was impossible because of the physical condition of the body. The cause of death was also known. In these peculiar circumstances, it is not just to deny the petitioner her relief insisting on technicalities. There may be cases where the conduct of the post-mortem will be essential and the person claiming the relief may not be able to justify her or his stand without the result of the post-mortem examination. But, this is not the case here, in view of the two official communications that we have extracted above. These would clearly show that the reason for Murugan’s death was drowning in the floods.
8. We think the State ought to have come forward and given her compensation without delaying the matter unnecessarily. The reason that the State had come forward to grant this relief to the afflicted families was because in most of the cases, the bread winner had died on account of the floods and therefore, the State ought to have been reasonable in this case. We, therefore, feel that this is a fit case for award of interest also.
9.Therefore, the writ appeal is allowed directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/-, i.e., Rs.50,000/- from the Prima Minister’s Relief Fund and Rs.10,000/- from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, together with interest at 6% p.a. from 15.8.1995 till the date of payment. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that though originally the deciding authority was the Collector, Cuddalore, due to the subsequent bifurcation, the jurisdictional Collector is the Collector, Ariyalur. Therefore, for complying with our order, if there should be inter-departmental communication, the payment of compensation shall not be delayed on that score. We expect all the necessary communication to go from the appropriate officer to the officer, who should grant the relief and the relief should be paid on or before 10.08.2009. No costs.
Post the matter for reporting compliance on 10.08.2009.
sra
To
1. The District Collector,
South Arcot Vallallar District,
Cuddalore.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ariyalur, Trichy District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Perambalur Taluk,
Perambalur,
Trichy District