High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
The Secretary to Government Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department
Versus
The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission & Others
W.P.No. 5124 of 2003
Decided on : 13-09-2010
Writ of Certiorari - State Human Rights Commission Order - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Section 13, 17, 18 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Commission to issue a positive direction for payment of compensation, the powers of inquiry and the scope of the Commission's recommendations. The court also highlighted the factual findings and the vicarious liability of the State for the actions of its employees.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of a minor child at a Child Care Centre, leading to a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission and an order awarding compensation to the parents of the deceased child.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commission had the jurisdiction to issue a positive direction for payment of compensation and that the State was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees. The court also upheld the factual findings of the Commission and dismissed the writ petition filed by the State.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Commission, Vicarious liability of the State, Factual findings of the Commission
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission had the power to recommend compensation and the State was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees. The factual findings of the Commission were upheld despite the verdict of the Criminal Court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the State was directed to settle the compensation awarded within two weeks.
The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission in case No.2096/2000/KSJ, dated 29.03.2002.
2. The petitioner is the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department and the challenge is to an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission awarding a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-as compensation to the respondents 2 & 3 for the death of their minor son with a direction to the State Government to pay the compensation by stating that the State is vicariously liable for the act done by its employees.
3. The facts of the case are that; the third respondent is the wife of the second respondent and their son Velan aged about 2 years was under the care and custody of a Child Care Centre, in Sanipatti village, Dharmapuri District. The allegation is, on 10.01.2000 at about 12.00 noon, when their son Velan was at the Centre to have the nutritious meal provided by the State Government, the two aayas by name Tmt.Rukku wife of Gopal and Tmt.Baby wife of Arumugam are stated to have beaten the boy and thrown him out of the Centre and he fell on the steps at the entrance, as a result sustained grievous internal injuries. One Alamelu, whose house was near the Centre is stated to have seen the boy being beaten by the two ladies and throwing him. The parents got the news and thereafter, the boy was taken to Krishnagiri for treatment in a private hospital and on advise, he was shifted to Government hospital, Tirupathur and without responding to the treatment the child died on 17.01.2000.
4. A complaint was lodged by the second respondent before the Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station and a case was registered against Tmt.Rukku and Tmt.Baby in Crime No.54/2000 for offence under Section 304 IPC. The respondents 2 & 3 filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission on 18.05.2000 and claimed compensation. The two aayas of the Centre were impleaded as respondents 2 & 3 and the Organizer of the Nutritious Meal Centre was impleaded as the third respondent and the District Collector, as fourth respondent in the complaint filed before the Commission. The Commission caused an enquiry into the matter and called for a report from the District Collector. The District Collector, Dharmapuri by communication sent during August 2000 stated that based on the criminal case, which has been registered and the subsequent arrest of the two employees, they were placed under suspension w.e.f 18.01.2000, and since the case was pending before the Criminal Court, further action could be taken on receipt of the Judgment from the Criminal Court.
5. A further report was also submitted by the District Collector on 211. 2000, stating that the criminal case was being adjourned from time to time, as the accused Rukku and Baby did not appear before the Criminal Court.
.6. The Commission after issuing notice to the respondents, proceeded to conduct the enquiry. The accused persons Tmt.Rukku and Tmt.Baby entered appearance through counsel and appear to have filed a counter contending that the child Velan had gained the required weight and therefore, he was not in the list of children, who were entitled to take the nutritious meal, however the respondents 2 & 3 herein insisted upon them to supply food to the child and since they refused to comply with the demand, a false complaint was lodged. The respondents 2 & 3 examined witnesses on their side, but the two accused persons though entered appearance through counsel abruptly failed to appear before the Commission, during the course of hearing and therefore, the Commission proceeded to decide the matter based on the available evidence. After analyzing the evidence on record, the Commission came to a conclusion that the said Tmt.Rukku and Tmt.Baby have assaulted the minor child Velan and his death is due to the said assault and therefore, awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.