Negligence of Municipality deemed responsible for fatal accident; compensation awarded based on established precedents.

1. The matter is heard through videoconferencing.

2. Without rain, there cannot be life in the world. However, rain is the cause for taking away a precious life in this case.

3. On the fateful night, i.e, on 12.05.2018, as there was heavy rain, the petitioner's husband, one Mr. Ashok Kumar, a mason, aged about 41 years, took cover under the sunshade of a toilet building in Palladam Bus Stand maintained by the 7th respondent Palladam Municipality. Due to heavy downpour, the roof of the toilet collapsed crushing the petitioner's husband to death and injuring another person, by name, Venkatesan. In this regard, an FIR was registered on 13.05.2018 in Cri.No. 498/2018 on the file of Palladam Police Station. Contending that because of negligence on the part of the 7th respondent in maintaining the toilet building, the building had collapsed, taking away the life of the petitioner's husband. Therefore, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.50 lakhs.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 7th respondent admitting the accident, however, contending that outside the toilet, a shade was fixed on the top of the toilet supported by iron rods, which alone collapsed and fell on the husband of the petitioner, who was taking shelter under the shade, leading to his death. The 7th respondent Municipality contended that the accident had occurred due to natural calamity and not due to any negligence on the part of the 7th respondent Municipality. Further, it is stated that the engineers of the 7th respondent inspected the toilet and checked the condition of the toilet and found that the same was in a stable condition. Therefore, the 7th respondent sought the dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard Mr.S. Kamalesh Kannan, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 6, Mr. B. Anand for Mr.A.S. Thambusamy, learned counsel for 7th respondent, Mr.Bala Ramesh, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 8 and 9.

6. It is evident, as per the admission made by the 7th respondent, that the accident had occurred due to the fall of shade, which was fixed on the ceiling of the toilet, resulting in the death of the petitioner's husband and injuring another person. Eventhough the 7th respondent would submit that it was a natural calamity and there was no negligence on their part and the 7th respondent is not responsible for the fall of shade, as the toilet was maintained properly and the building was in a stable and sound condition, the said contention has to be rejected for the reason that the shade had been fixed to the toilet building only by the Municipality and it cannot surface on its own. The necessity to fix the shade with iron rods has not been explained by the 7th respondent. In any event, the shade was part of the toilet building and it had been put up by the 7th respondent and therefore, the 7th respondent alone could be held negligent for the falling of the shade on the petitioner's husband. If the shade had been properly fixed, then there would have been no occasion for it to fall down. Therefore, it is the 7th respondent Municipality's negligence, due to which the accident had occurred, resulting in death of petitioner's husband and the Municipality is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

7. Though it is contended that a writ petition is not maintainable regarding payment of compensation, Mr. M. Purushothaman, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2017 (2) CTC 119 (The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003 v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to G