1. Death of a child due to an uncovered sewerage tank — Petition for compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1992 Supreme(SC) 23
M.H. KANIA C.J.I. AND KULDIP SINGH, J.
Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1992, D/-14-1-1992.
Smt. Kumari, Appellant
Versus
State of T.N. and others, Respondents.
The State can be directed to pay compensation for death caused by negligence in writ jurisdiction, even if the specific negligent authority is not immediately identified, provided the State is granted the liberty to recover the amount from the responsible party.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Death of a child due to negligence - Open sewerage tank - Compensation - High Court dismissed petition on ground that specific negligent respondent could not be determined in writ jurisdiction - State directed to pay compensation with interest - State liberty to recover amount from the responsible authority. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
A six-year-old child died after falling into a ten-foot-deep sewerage tank that was left open without a lid. A petition for a writ of mandamus was filed seeking compensation of Rs. 50,000. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that it was not possible to determine which of the respondents was negligent within the scope of writ jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The State is directed to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the specified date. The State is permitted to initiate proceedings to recover the amount from the authority actually responsible for the negligence.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition for compensation on the grounds that the specific negligent respondent could not be identified in writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State should be held liable to pay compensation for the death caused by the open sewerage tank, while granting the State the right to recover the amount from the specific responsible authority through appropriate legal proceedings.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether writ jurisdiction is suitable for awarding compensation when the specific negligent respondent among several authorities is not readily determinable. (Para 2 )
3. The court determined that the State should provide compensation, while retaining the right to recover the sum from the actual negligent authority. (Para 3 )
4. The State is liable for compensation for public infrastructure negligence, with a subsequent right to recover from the specific responsible authority. (Para 3 )
5. High Court judgment set aside; State directed to pay compensation with interest, with liberty to recover from the responsible authority. (Para 3 )
6. Can compensation for negligence be awarded under writ jurisdiction even if the specific negligent respondent is not identified?
Yes, the court can set aside a dismissal based on the inability to identify the specific negligent respondent and direct the State to pay compensation. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. Is the State liable for compensation when a citizen dies due to an uncovered public sewerage tank?
Yes, the court held the State liable to pay compensation for the death resulting from an uncovered sewerage tank. (Para 3 )
8. Does the State have a right to recover compensation paid to a victim from the actual negligent authority?
Yes, the State may take appropriate proceedings to claim the paid amount or any part thereof from the authority responsible for the negligence. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT:- Special leave granted.
2. Six years old son of the appellant died. as a result of falling in a ten feet deep sewerage tank in the city of Madras. The tank was not covered with a lid and was left open. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the appellant. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that in writ jurisdiction it was not possible to determine as to which of the respondents was negligent in leaving the sewerage tank uncovered.
3. In the facts and circumstances of this case we set aside the High Court judgment and direct that respondent No. 1, the State of Tamil Nadu shall pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) with interest at 12% per annum from January 1, 1990 till the date of payment. The amount shall be paid within six weeks from today. It will be open to the State of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate proceedings to claim the said amount or any part thereof from any of the respondents or any other authority which might be responsible for keeping the sewerage tank open. The claim, if made, will be decided in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
