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)(Tel) 36682

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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Madan Mohan Rao
For the Respondents: Assistant Government for Revenue, Assistant Government Pleader for I&CAD, Assistant Government Pleader for Home

The State is vicariously liable to pay compensation for accidental deaths occurring due to the negligence of public authorities in failing to implement safety measures in public areas, independent of specific ex-gratia schemes.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Accidental death - Negligence of authorities - Compensation - Claimants sought compensation for death of minors due to drowning in an unprotected project area - Government authorities failed to maintain safety measures like signboards - Petitioners sought ex-gratia and employment - Court held that while the claim for ex-gratia due to negligence is valid, mandatory employment for family members is not legally sustainable as minors are not earning dependents. (Paras 10, 15, 16, 17, 20)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Principles of compensation - State liability - Following the principle that accidental death owing to lack of safety measures and negligence of public authorities entitles the victims' families to compensation, the court ordered payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- subject to deduction of any previously paid amounts. (Paras 10, 11, 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
Three minor children aged eight years drowned in the Kinnerasani Project on 23.01.2011 after slipping from an unprotected sluice. The petitioners, representing the grieving families, alleged gross negligence by the respondent authorities and requested ex-gratia compensation and employment. Government respondents argued that payment should be governed by the 'Apathbandu Scheme', which limits compensation to Rs. 50,000/- for accidental deaths.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the lack of safety measures such as signboards at the project site evidenced negligence. Although the claim for government employment was denied, the court directed the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- per family, to be adjusted against any amounts already received.

Issues: The main issues were the liability of the State for the death of minors in an unprotected public project and the determination of appropriate compensation versus the claim for employment.

Ratio Decidendi: The State is vicariously liable to pay compensation for accidental deaths resulting from the established negligence and lack of maintenance of safety precautions in public project areas; however, compensation for loss of dependency is specific to earning members and does not automatically entitle the family to government employment. Result : Writ petition disposed of with directions to pay compensation.

Table of Content
1. prayer for compensation and employment due to negligence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. state liability and judicial precedents on accidental death compensation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. establishment of administrative negligence and failure of safety protocols. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. quantum of compensation, deduction of existing payments, and denial of job claims. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

ORDER:

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/-

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