SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 5240

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN
D. Govindasamy
Versus
The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur
W.P.No.9105 of 2003
Decided on : 03-12-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Akhila for Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:P. Gurunathan, Government Advocate.

The occurrence of the event alone should be the basis for granting relief, and the time of occurrence is immaterial. The duty of the government to provide relief to the victims of natural calamities without discrimination.

Headnote:

Act of God - Natural Calamities - Prime Ministers Relief Fund - [Whartons Law Lexicon, R.F.v Henstone Salmond on the Law of Torts, Black Law Dictionary] - The court discussed the definition of 'Act of God' as an overwhelming, un-preventable event caused exclusively by forces of nature, and emphasized that the occurrence of the event alone should be the basis for granting relief, and the time of occurrence is immaterial. The court also highlighted the duty of the government to provide relief to the victims of natural calamities without discrimination.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's wife died due to a thunderbolt, and the petitioner sought relief from the Prime Ministers Relief Fund. The respondent rejected the petitioner's claim based on the timing of the event, stating that relief was granted only to those who died during the North East Monsoon season.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the respondent's reasoning for rejecting the petitioner's claim to be unreasonable and unjustified, emphasizing that the occurrence of the event alone should be the basis for granting relief, and the time of occurrence is immaterial. The court also highlighted the duty of the government to provide relief to the victims of natural calamities without discrimination.

Issues: The main issue was the denial of relief from the Prime Ministers Relief Fund to the petitioner based on the timing of the natural calamity, specifically the thunderbolt that caused the death of the petitioner's wife.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the occurrence of the event alone should be the basis for granting relief, and the time of occurrence is immaterial. The court also emphasized the duty of the government to provide relief to the victims of natural calamities without discrimination.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent to pay the relief amount to the petitioner as paid to similarly placed persons within six weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.

Judgment

“ TAMIL ” "Rain or thunder shower or isolated rain would occur at many places— This is usual weather report issued by Meteorological Centre. Many times it was proved to be correct or otherwise also. We experience unexpected heavy rain fall which could not be forecast by Weather Centre. Expecting heavy rain as forecast by the center, schools, some times used to be closed. However that day would turn out to be a bright and clear sunny day. Therefore we cannot predict the events of nature. That is the reason why they are called "Acts of God".(natural events)

As per Whartons Law Lexicon "Act of God" mean, a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of nature, which could not, by any reasonable care, have been foreseen or resisted.

As per R.F.v Henstone Salmond on the Law of Torts, 330 Edn. 1977 "Act of God" means, an overwhelming, un-preventable event caused exclusively by forces of nature, such as an earthquake, flood, or tornado. The definition has been statutorily broadened to include all natural phenomena that are exceptional, inevitable and irresistible, the effects of which could not be prevented or avoided by the exercise of due care of foresight, Black Law Dictionary, 7th Edition.

It may be defined to be any accident, due directly and exclusively to natural causes without human intervention, which by no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have been expected, could have been prevented. The general characteristics of such perils are very intelligble.

2. It is said monsoonal and other then weather additions in India are unstable. A person who lost his wife due to "Act of Nature" or "Act of God" knocks the doors of this court challenging the order dated 19.09.2002 passed by the respondent rejecting petitioners claim from the Prime Ministers Relief Fund for the death of his wife who was struck by thunder and died on 23.09.1998. The petitioner gave a representation to the State and Central Government seeking exgratio payment from the State Government and also from Prime Ministers Relief Fund.

.3. The case of the petitioner is that his wife died as a result of thunder bolt on 29. 1980

.and he applied for relief under "Prime Ministers relief fund". He contends that though he got nominal relief from the State Fund, he did not get any relief from the Central Fund namely Prime Ministers Relief Fund. In his representation dated 011. 2000 and 06.08.2001 the petitioner gave list of persons, who were granted similar relief from the Prime Ministers Relief Fund as well as from the State.

4. As stated above, the petitioner got relief only from the State Government and his representation was not considered for grant of relief from the Prime Ministers Relief Fund. Therefore the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.24585 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court on 20.06.2002 directing the respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 011. 2000 and 06.08.2001.

5. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondent recommended the petitioners case for grant of relief under Prime Ministers Relief Fund for the death of his wife through a communication bearing No.Na.Ka.C2/22569/2002 dated 19.09.2002. However, subsequently by an order dated 19.02.2003, the petitioners claim was rejected by the respondent stating that relief was granted upto 1999 only to those who died during the North East Monsoon season namely October to December alone and as the petitioners wife died on 23.09.1998, the same was rejected. The said order is being challenged before this court.

.6. The petitioner pointed out through his representation dated 011. 2000 and 06.08.2001 that similarly placed persons got relief both from State Government as well as from the Prime Ministers Relief Fund. Apart from that, it is seen from the respondents communication dated 19.09.2002 that his claim for payment of exgratia under Prime Ministers Relief Fund was recommended and the same is extracted as follows:

.“ TAMIL “

7. Su



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top