1. Death of a child due to an uncovered sewerage tank — Writ petition under Article 226 for compensation. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1992 Supreme(SC) 1065
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. Kania, C.J.I., Kuldip Singh, J.
Smt. Kumari - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu and ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1992
Decided On : 14-01-1992
Important Points
The State is liable to pay compensation for death resulting from negligence, such as an open sewerage tank; the inability to pinpoint the specific negligent authority at the writ stage does not preclude the award of compensation, provided the State can later recover it from the responsible party.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction and State Liability
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Death due to negligence - Open sewerage tank - Compensation - High Court dismissed writ petition on the ground that specific negligent respondent could not be determined in writ jurisdiction - State directed to pay compensation to the claimant with interest - State reserved right to recover the 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 uncovered. A writ petition 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 in leaving the tank uncovered within the scope of writ jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The State shall pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 with interest at 12 percent per annum from January 1, 1990, till the date of payment. The State is permitted to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the said amount or any part thereof from the authority responsible for keeping the sewerage tank open.
Issues: Whether the State is liable to pay compensation for the death of a child caused by an open sewerage tank, and whether such compensation can be granted in writ jurisdiction even if the specific negligent authority is not immediately identified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State is liable to compensate the victim's family for the death caused by the negligence of leaving a sewerage tank open, and the State may subsequently recover the amount from the specific responsible authority in accordance with law.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
A six-year-old child died after falling into a ten-foot-deep sewerage tank that was left uncovered. A writ petition 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 in leaving the tank uncovered within the scope of writ jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The State shall pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 with interest at 12 percent per annum from January 1, 1990, till the date of payment. The State is permitted to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the said amount or any part thereof from the authority responsible for keeping the sewerage tank open.
Issues: Whether the State is liable to pay compensation for the death of a child caused by an open sewerage tank, and whether such compensation can be granted in writ jurisdiction even if the specific negligent authority is not immediately identified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State is liable to compensate the victim's family for the death caused by the negligence of leaving a sewerage tank open, and the State may subsequently recover the amount from the specific responsible authority in accordance with law.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether compensation is maintainable in writ jurisdiction when the specific negligent respondent cannot be determined. (Para 2 )
3. The court determined that the State should pay compensation, while retaining the right to recover the sum from the responsible authority. (Para 3 )
4. The State is liable for compensation arising from negligence in public infrastructure maintenance, regardless of the specific internal authority's fault. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — State directed to pay compensation with interest. (Para 3 )
6. Can the State be held liable for compensation for a death caused by an uncovered sewerage tank?
Yes, the court directed the State to pay compensation for the death resulting from an uncovered sewerage tank. (Para 3 )
7. Can the State recover compensation paid to a claimant from the specific authority responsible for the negligence?
Yes, the court held that the State may take appropriate proceedings to claim the paid amount or any part thereof from the respondent or authority responsible for keeping the tank open. (Para 3 )
8. Is the inability to identify the specific negligent respondent in writ jurisdiction a valid ground to deny compensation?
No, the court set aside the High Court's dismissal based on this ground and ordered the State to pay the compensation. (Para 2 , 3 )
ORDER :
Kuldip Singh, J.
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 an appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamu 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 the respondent 1, the State of Tamil Nadu shall pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with interest at 12 percent 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.
