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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1532

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.
Kandukuri Rama Krishna – Appellant 
Versus 
The State of Telangana Represented by – Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 3861 of 2013
Decided On : 24-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S MADAN MOHAN RAO
For the Respondent: GP FOR IRRIGATION AND COMM AREA DEV

The State is vicariously liable for negligence resulting in the deaths of minors due to lack of safety measures, warranting compensation to their families.

Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Writ of Mandamus - Compensation - A writ petition was filed seeking an ex-gratia payment of Rs.2,00,000/- for the families of three minor children who died due to the negligence of the authorities at Kinnerasani Project. The court observed that no safety measures were in place, constituting negligence on the part of the state. The court directed that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be paid to each family, considering amounts already received. (Paras 1, 10, 20, 22)

(B) Liability of State - The State is vicariously liable for the negligence of its officials in failing to provide safety measures, leading to accidental deaths of minors. The court emphasized that the absence of precautions demanded accountability. (Paras 5, 16, 20)

(C) Employment - The request for a job for each family member was rejected. The court clarified that parents cannot claim dependency on deceased minors for employment benefits. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners are parents of three children who drowned at Kinnerasani Project on 23.01.2011 due to negligence in enforcing safety measures. Promise of ex-gratia payment was made by state officials, which was not fulfilled.

Findings of Court:
The court directed payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to each family, subject to adjustment for earlier payments.

Issues: Whether the state owed a duty of care that was breached, leading to the deaths, and whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and employment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the state is vicariously liable for the negligence due to the absence of safety protocols, thus justifying the ex-gratia payment.

Result: The petitioners are entitled to compensation; writ petition disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. writ petition and prayer for compensation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. accidental deaths of minors due to negligence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. state's liability under apathbandu scheme. (Para 7 , 8 , 18)
4. judicial precedence on compensation. (Para 10 , 11 , 17)
5. need for safety measures highlighted. (Para 12 , 15 , 16)
6. court's order for compensation payment. (Para 22 , 23)

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

“… to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

a) Direct the respondent No.1 to 10 to pay the exgratia amount/compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the dependent family in lieu of the untimely death of their minor sons by name Kandukuri Venkatesh, Kandukuri Venu and Ravula Narasimha Rao all aged 8 years at the time of death on 23.01.2011 at Kinnerasani Project (L.F. Head Sluices), Paloncha due to the gross negligence of the respondents

b) To direct the respondents to provide Luskar job to each of the dependent family besides.

c) Directing the respondents to initiate case, against the erring employees of Kinnerasani Project (L.F. Head Sluices), Paloncha who were responsible for the the untimely death of the above minor children, under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Mr. S. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government for Revenue for respondent Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9, learned Assistant Government Pleader for I&CAD, for respondent Nos.4 to 7, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.3 and 10.

3. The case of petitioners is that one child of each of the petitioners, aged around eight (8) years, who were students, three of them, died on 23.01.2011 in Kinnerasani Project.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that children of petitioners went to hear the sluices at Kinnerasani Project at Paloncha, while they were looking at the unprotected sluices, all of a sudden, all the three children slipped from the sluices and fell inside the Kinnerasani Project. As they did not know swimming, all the three children died.

5. It is submitted that gross negligence of respondent Nos.1 to 9 led to the accident. That the Minister of State of Andhra Pradesh visited the spot along with other villagers. It is further submitted that Minister discussed the issue with the Irrigation Department officials and respondent Nos.1 to 10 announced an ex-gratia of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the deceased families and one job of luskur post to each dependent family, and also promised to initiate criminal action against the respondent authorities. It is also submitted that notices were issued to respondent authorities, which were served on respondent Nos.5 to 9, but there was no response.

6. It is submitted that petitioners approached the Chairman, Legal Services Authority, Kothagudem, seeking a direction to respondent Nos.5 to 9 for passing an award for payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and one luskur post to each of the deceased family members. That though notices were issued, when the matter was listed before the Legal Services Authority, the respondent authorities failed to fulfill the promises. It is pointed out that on 22.09.2012, the Mandal Legal Services Authority closed the petition granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the proper forum.

7. It is the case of petitioners that State Government is vicariously liable for gross negligence of authorities and having promised to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as ex-gratia besides one luskur post to each of the dependant families, yet the respondent authorities failed to take action. Hence, writ petition.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9 submitted that under ‘Apathbandu Scheme 2013-14’, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be released to the deceased family through bank accounts within

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