The main legal principle established in the judgment is that both the State and parents have a duty to protect children in public places, and the compensation awarded should be reasonable and in line with relevant Government Orders.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioners an adequate compensation of not less than Rs.20 lakhs for the loss of their two sons at the rate of Rs.10 lakhs for each son, who drowned in the tank which situate within the fifth respondent jurisdiction.)

The Writ of Mandamus has been filed to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners an adequate compensation of not less than Rs.20 lakhs for the loss of his two sons.

2. The petitioners are the wife and husband and they are residing at Sivan Koil East Street, Thiruvetkulam Village, Annamalai Nagar Post, Chidambaram Taluk, where an ancient temple Pasupatheeswarar Temple situates nearby and the temple''s tank is on its Eastern side.

3. On 11.01.2015, the petitioners allowed their two children to play in the street. The other children were also playing along with the children of the petitioners in the very same street. Since it was a holiday, the two children of the petitioners did not return for lunch even after 01.00 P.M.

4. They made an intensive search in that area and thereafter lodged a complaint before the Annamalai Nagar Police Station on the same day. On 12.01.2015 i.e., on the next day, the people of that locality informed the petitioners that the body of their second son viz., Pradeesh was floating in the temple tank. The elder son viz., Nitish Kannan was also not found.

5. The Fire Servicemen came to the spot and searched for him in the tank. The body of the elder son was also removed from the tank of the temple and post-mortem was conducted.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Competent Authorities have not taken adequate measures to protect the public from falling into the temple''s tank during the relevant point of time. The parapet wall constructed on the three sides of the Well. A Warning Board was commissioned to the general public. However, the children being aged 7 years and 11 years respectively, such Warning Boards would not have any impact in respect of their falling into the temple''s tank.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, made a submission that there was no negligence on the part of the officials, since the parapet wall was constructed on the three sides of the Well and the Warning Boards were commissioned and it is for the parents of the children to take adequate care by not allowing their children to go nearby the temple''s tank. Thus the petitioners also have committed negligence by allowing their children to go nearby the temple''s tank. Therefore, the State is not responsible.

8. However, it is contended that the Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for the death of two children of the petitioners. The said amount has already been received by the petitioners. While-so, the present writ petition is to be rejected.

9. No doubt, the parents are duty bound to protect their children from such untoward incidents. The parents are expected to take adequate care to ensure that their children are playing in a safe area and in the event of any such sign boards by the Authorities, they should not allow their children to go nearby such places.

10. Therefore, in the present case, the duty of the parents is also to be reminded off by this Court. Equally the State has to take adequate measures to ensure that protections are provided in such construction sites or tanks situate in public places.

11. The said tanks in public areas are to be closed properly, so as to ensure that the children or any person mistakenly or otherwise fall down. Thus to some extent, the Authorities also had failed in their duty to provide adequate protection from happening any such untoward incidents in public places.

12. Everyone concerned are also duty bound to protect the children from such untoward incidents in public places. All such mitigating factors are