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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71938

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Lithiya Pramila – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary – Respondent
WP.No.11937 of 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Ezhil Caroline
For the Respondents: T. Seenivasan, G. T. Subramaniam

The owner of premises where a septic tank cleaner died is liable to reimburse the compensation paid by the local body under a benevolent Government Order, irrespective of the owner's absence at the time of death.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari - Government Order No.109 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department dated 09.03.2017 - Supreme Court order in WP

(C) No.583 of 2023 dated 27.03.2014 - Compensation for death due to manual scavenging - Recovery from owner of premises. (Para 11, 16)

(B) Tort Law - Liability of owner of premises - Owner is answerable for tortious acts occurring on the premises - Owner must compensate for death of worker engaged in cleaning septic tank even if owner was not present - Varying stands taken by petitioner cannot absolve liability. (Paras 15, 18)

(C) Benevolent Government Order - The order ensuring immediate relief to dependants of deceased from local body and recovery from owner is valid and not subject to interference - Owner of premises has no right to escape liability merely because payment was made by the local body. (Paras 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of a property with a septic tank, engaged a private person (Ms. Poongothai) through her septic tank cleaning vehicle to empty the tank. Poongothai sent a worker (Mr. Babu) who died after falling into the tank. The petitioner and her husband were away at a prayer meeting. The local body (Corporation) paid Rs.10,00,000 to the deceased's family as per Government Order implementing Supreme Court directions and sought reimbursement from the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the recovery notice.

Findings of Court:
The Court found contradictions in the petitioner's stand - initially denying any engagement of the deceased, later admitting engaging Poongothai and producing insurance details. The Court held that as owner of the premises, the petitioner is answerable for tortious acts on the premises. The Government Order is benevolent and not challenged; the recovery from the owner is proper. No interference warranted.

Issues: Whether the recovery notice issued by the Corporation to the petitioner for reimbursement of compensation paid to the deceased's family is valid? Whether the owner of the premises can be held liable even if the death occurred without her direct involvement?

Ratio Decidendi: The owner of a building is responsible for any tortious act taking place on the premises. The Government Order providing immediate relief to victims of manual scavenging and allowing recovery from the owner is valid. The petitioner's absence at the time of death does not absolve her liability. The varying stands taken by the petitioner undermine her case.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to pay the amount under the impugned order, with liberty to claim against Poongothai and insurer if entitled. No costs. (Paras 18, 19)

ORDER

The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari, challenging the order passed by the seventh respondent dated 28.03.2017.

2. Heard Ms.E.Ezhil Caroline for the petitioner, Dr.T.Seenivasan, for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.G.T.Subramanian, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7.

3. The undisputed facts are the petitioner is owner of the property situated in S.No.451/33 bearing Door.No.67, NSK Street, Puzhal Chennai-66. She had purchased the property on 03.08.2006 by way of registered document.

4. The petitioner had put up a construction, after getting approval from the Town Planning Authorities. The property, apart from the building consists of a Well and a Septic Tank.

5. The petitioner’s house is not connected to a Sewage Drainage System. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to utilize a septic tank for the said purpose. As and when the septic tank was filled to its capacity, the petitioner states that she would approach the seventh respondent for the purpose of clearing the same.

6. In and about 2016, the petitioner had approached the seventh respondent, yet again, seeking clearance of the septic tank. The seventh respondent is said to have informed her that no workmen are available with them to do the job and that she is free to engage a private concern to evacuate the waste so collected. Accordingly, the petitioner engaged the services of one Ms.Poongothai having her residence at 1/43, Bajanai Koil Street, Vadakarai, Red Hills, Chennai-52.

7. The said Poongothai was is possession of a Septic Tank Cleaning vehicle which had valid insurance till September 2017. The petitioner engaged the said Poongothai in March 2015 and called upon her to empty the septic tank. The said Poongothai appointed one Mr.Babu to go over to the premises and clear the same.

8. On the date, when claiming was to take place, the petitioner and her husband left the house to attend Women Fellowship Prayer Meeting at their Church. The said Babu commenced the operation for clearance. Unfortunately, he fell into the tank and breathed his last. The petitioner came to know about the same when she returned home, after her prayers were over. By that time, Babu had gone to meet his maker.

9. The allegation of the petitioner is that she never engaged Poongothai for manual cleaning and it was Babu who had on his own entered into the Septic Tank for clearance. This, despite the fact, a vehicle had been sent for the said purpose. . Taking cognizance of the death, a first information report was filed by the Station House Officer of Puzhal Police Station on 29.03.2016.

10. On the account of death, the wife of the said Babu made a claim with the respondents 2 to 7 to compensate her for the death of her husband. The Corporation Authorities relying upon Government Order 109 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department dated 09.03.2017 paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the dependants of Mr.Babu.

11. This Government Order came to be passed pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme court in WP(Civil).No.583 of 2023 dated 27.03.2014. In the said order, the Supreme Court had directed that the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- should be paid to the family members, of those who had died, due to manual scavenging. In compliance with the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, the Government undertook to discharge the liability of payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to the family of the deceased. The order left it open to the concerned local body to recover the amount so paid, from the owners of the premises, if they have the capacity to pay the compensation to the concerned local body.

12. Invoking the said GO, the seventh respondent issued a notice to the petitioner’s husband calling upon him to reimburse the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- The petitioner’s husband issued a response stating that he is not the owner of the property. He also stated the following:

1) The Septic Tank contains only running water and Babu had been watching the flow of running water and had peeped into the pit and fell in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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