Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1227
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
V. Baby – Petitioner
Versus
State Commissioner for Disabilities, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 1901 of 2014
Decided On : 05-03-2015
For the Petitioner:M/s. Giridhar, Sai, Advocates.
For the Respondents:P. Rajalakshmi, Government Advocates.
Headnote:
Persons with Disabilities Act - Section 62(b) – Claim of compensation – Quash of order - Petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to quash order passed by second respondent and also Order passed by first respondent and consequently direct second respondent to grant Tsunami compensation to her as per tune of Only together with interest at per annum on said sum from date of payment together with other consequential benefits - Petitioner is wife of Late - Petitioner is an uneducated person and residing at - According to petitioner her husband was a handicapped person and had suffered of permanent physical impartment inasmuch as his leg was amputated below his knee due to injuries sustained by him in an accident and he was wearing an artificial limb - Petitioner claims that her husband used to purchase fish at Seashore sell them in retail by travelling in his bi-cycle by which he earned - According to petitioner her husband was sole bread-winner of her family consisting of petitioner her husband and two minor children – Held, It is true that there was another death certificate produced to certify death of petitioner’s husband wherein it is stated that petitioner’s husband consumed mud mixed with sea water - Of course such certificate issued can at best be treated as a supportive document to certify death of petitioner’s husband - At any rate first death certificate produced by petitioner clearly discloses that due to ailment suffered by petitioner’s husband in Tsunami waves petitioner’s husband died - These documents are sufficient proof to enable petitioner to receive relief package which was in nature of solarium ordered to be disbursed from Honorable Chief Minister’s Relief Fund - Therefore manner in which first respondent proceeded to deal with claim of petitioner and rejected her claim is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable - Petitioner has filed complaint under Section 62(b) of Act before first respondent seeking to direct second respondent to disburse Tsunami relief package - Per provisions of Act first respondent is empowered to exercise his powers either basis of an application filed by a victim and to look into complaint to conclude as to whether non-implementation of any of matters concerning persons with disability warrants interference or not - In present case having regard to nature of complaint given by petitioner first respondent ought to have taken a pragmatic approach to matter to examine as to whether reasons given by second respondent to reject claim of petitioner that her husband was a disabled person and he could not have engaged in any avocation is valid and proper - Instead prima facie it appears that first respondent attempted to reject complaint given by petitioner solely on ground that petitioner has approached this Court by filing a Contempt Petition - Therefore order passed by first respondent cannot be sustained - Writ petition is allowed
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 23.06.2005 passed by the second respondent and also the Order dated 18.07.2013 passed by the first respondent and consequently direct the second respondent to grant Tsunami compensation to her as per G.O. Ms. No.574 dated 28.12.2014 to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with interest at 12% per annum on the said sum from 29.12.2004 to the date of payment together with other consequential benefits.
3. The petitioner is the wife of Late. Velan Shamban. The petitioner is an uneducated person and residing at Vadamalai Kizhaku, Manakadu Post, Vetharanyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District. According to the petitioner, her husband was a handicapped person and had suffered 55% of permanent physical impartment inasmuch as his leg was amputated below his knee due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident and he was wearing an artificial limb. The petitioner claims that her husband used to purchase fish at Kodaikhari Seashore, Nagapattinam, sell them in retail by travelling in his bi-cycle by which he earned Rs.2,000/- per month. According to the petitioner, her husband was the sole bread-winner of her family consisting of the petitioner, her husband and two minor children.
4. According to the petitioner, on 26.12.2014, her husband had gone to the sea shore to purchase fish and at that time the Tsunami waves stuck the costal area due to which her husband was thrown into the sea. In the impact, the petitioner’s husband claimed to have consumed mud mixed with sea water. It is also claimed that both his lungs were damaged and he developed severe respiratory problems and primary neurogonic shock. Immediately, the petitioner’s husband was taken to a private hospital at Thiruthuraipoondi in an unconscious stage. As the petitioner was unable to pay the medical bills, her husband was shifted from the private hospital to Government General Hospital, Thiruthuraipoondi on 31.12.2014. As the petitioner’s husband required intensive treatment and such facilities were not available at Government Hospital, Thiruthuraipoondi, he was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Thanjavur. During transit to Government Hospital, Thanjavur, at about 06.30 pm, the petitioner’s husband died due to the natural calamity on 26.12.2014 and a death certificate dated 31.12.2014 was issued by the Senior Civil Surgeon Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Thiruthuraipoondi.
5. With these facts, the petiitoner submitted a representation to the second respondent seeking to grant Tsunami Relief Package of Rs.1 lakhs to her on the death of her husband in terms of G.O. Ms. No.574 dated 28.12.2004. The second respondent, by an order dated 27.06.2005 rejected the request of the petitioner by passing a five line order by stating that on enquiry, it came to light that the petitioner’s husband was a handicapped person provided with an artificial limb and therefore, there is no possibility for him to venture into sea to purchase or sell fish. The petitioner was totally shocked by the manner in which such order of rejection dated 27.06.2005 was passed by the second respondent. Therefore, she invoked the jurisdiction of the first respondent by filing a complaint as contemplated under Section 62(b) of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act (hereinafter called as ‘The Act’). The said complaint was taken on file by the first respondent as Case No. 2999 of 2007. As the complaint was pending for a long time without being disposed, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP No. 7153 of 2012 praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass orders on the representation da
