(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards compensation for the death of C.Sundram, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinna Salem Police Station, Villupuram District, who was killed in a shooting incident on 12.07.2000.)

In an unfortunate incident occurred on 12.07.2000, the son of the petitioner, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police died in an accidental fire by their own police party.

2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ are:- Late Sri.Sundram, son of the petitioner is aged about 37 years and he has M.Sc. and M.Ed., and he was selected as Sub-Inspector of Police by the Respondents and trained and posted at Chinna Salem Police Station in Villupuram District.

3. On 12.7.2000, he along with the Inspector of Police Abdulla and another Sub-Inspector of Police Saravanan had gone to Nainapalayam in order to apprehend an accused in a case and the police party were armed with loaded weapons and the officers were carrying 9 mm pistols as usual. While the Sub-Inspector Saravanan who was unloading his 9 mm pistol there is a discharge of a shot accidentally and it has pierced into the left side neck of the deceased who was immediately taken to the nearby hospital, pronounced dead. Thus, the death of the deceased who is the son of the petitioner is totally accidentally. A case for an offence under Section 304A I.P.C. was registered in Crime No.515 of 2000 and an enquiry also was conducted by the Revenue Officials.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondents did not discharge their statutory duties by giving statutory benefits to the petitioner and has sanctioned only a minimum pension of Rs.2600/- and Rs.1.00 lakh payable to all Government employees who die in harness. The contention of the petitioner is that his son died while he was on duty, and it is due to an accident and as per law of the land, the petitioner is entitled for compensation.

COUNTER:-

5. The Respondents filed a Counter affidavit, wherein the death of the deceased is admitted. It is also admitted that the deceased was working as Sub-Inspector of Police and it is also stated how the incident occurred. A police case was registered and in a Sessions Case No.172 of 2001 the said accused Sub-Inspector was convicted, but on appeal in the District Court the accused was acquitted. Be it may be the Respondents in para 6 stated that a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh has been paid to the petitioner's wife under the Family Benefit Security Fund Scheme on 4.10.2000 and it is as per the Government instructions. According to the Respondents totally a sum of Rs.1,49,933/- was paid to the wife of the deceased by name C.Muthammal and they are paying Rs.1,635/- as pension as sanctioned. The contention of the Respondents is that the deceased was working only as a trainee Sub-Inspector at the time of incident. In para 8 it is stated that the request of the wife of the deceased was sent to the Director General of Police for the sanction of Rs.1.00 lakh under Group Insurance Scheme. The Respondents contended that the claim of the petitioner to pay 15.00 lakhs is higher side and untenable and is liable to be rejected.

ARGUMENTS:-

6. Heard the arguments of both sides.

7. On behalf of the petitioner the Pay Certificate of the deceased is produced and accordingly the deceased was drawing Rs.7414/- as gross salary and after deductions his net salary is Rs.6,595/-. The Respondents did not dispute about the age of the deceased. Therefore, the deceased would have continued in service for a long period and he would have contributed to the family benefit, but for his untimely death.

8. In is no doubt that the incident is due to the negligence of the accused Assistant Sub-Inspector. This negligent act of the Assistant Sub-Inspector has caused purely to the family of the deceased Sub-Inspector, an adequate and effective care was not taken.