High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 11.04.2007Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Appeal No.1169 of 2004& WAMP No.2198 of 20041.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.3.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.4.The Director General of Police, Law and Order, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-2.5.The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli, Tiruchi-1... AppellantsVs.R.Dhanalakshmi.. RespondentWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against theorder dated 29.10.2003 made in W.P.No.13577 of 1996 presented to thisCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ ofMandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.9 lakhs[Rypees nine lakhs only] to the petitioner and her two minor childrenand her old aged mother-in-law for the death of her husband due to policetorture at Karur Police Station.For Appellants : Mr.P.Subramanian, Government AdvocateFor Respondent : Mr.V.Ananthakrishnan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENTP. SATHASIVAM, J.Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 29.10.2003made in W.P.No.13577 of 1996, the Government and their Officers preferredthe above appeal.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writpetition.3.The respondent herein/writ petitioner prayed for a writ of Mandamusdirecting the respondents-Government and their Officers to paycompensation of Rs.9,00,000/- to her and her two children as well as heraged mother-in-law for the death of her husband due to police torture atKarur Police Station, Trichirapalli District (Now Karur District).According to her, on 23.03.1995 at about 5.00 hours, her husband Rajmohanwas taken into police custody by R.Eswaran, Sub Inspector of Police,Karur Police Station, from his house at Veeramalai Palayam,Kaniyalampatti Post, Chinthamanipatti and proceeded in a van towardsKarur. Later on, he was tortured and beaten to death by the SubInspector of Police, Karur Police Station. The Sub Collector, conductedinquiry under Section 145 of the Police Standing Order. The post-mortemreport issued by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Karur, revealedthe fact that the victim died of Neurogenic shock due to pain caused bythe injuries on the chest 10-14 hours prior to autopsy.4. The deceased Rajmohan, the sole bread winner of the petitioner'sfamily, is a victim of custodial death, leaving his entire familyconsisting of his wife, the writ petitioner, two sons and mother in astate of penury and starvation. The Government, by G.O.Ms.No.(N) 1069Public (Law and Order) Department, dated 14.11.1995, sanctioned a sum ofRs.1,00,000/- from the Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund and the saidamount was disbursed to the family through the Collector, Trichirappali on21.01.1996.5. The age of the victim at the time of cause of action is stated tobe 29 years. He was a fleet owner operating a lorry bearing registrationNo.TNY 8681 and he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month through his lorry.The petitioner and her family members lost their only earning member. Shesent a legal notice calling upon the official respondents for payment ofRs.9,00,000/- as compensation. Since there was no response, she filed thewrit petition for appropriate direction.6. The Collector, Karur District, has filed a counter affidavit,wherein it is stated that taking into account the claim of thepetitioner and the family of the deceased, the Government paid ex-gratiaamount of Rs.1,00,000/-, hence, the petitioner is not eligible for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further amount.7. The Additional Secretary to Government, Public (L & O.A)Department, has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated thattaking note of the fact that the petitioner's husband is reported to havedied under police custody and on the basis of the report of the SubCollector, Karur, the Government have sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- ascompensation to the petitioner from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund andthe said amount was paid to her on 17.01.1996. Inasmuch as the Governmenthas already taken into consideration all factors and sanctioned a sum ofRs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner as per the existingnorms, no further amount is permissible and the writ petition is liable tobe dismissed.8. The learned single Judge, after taking note of the monthly incomeand the age of the deceased, by applying the multiplier method asprovided in the Motor Vehicles Act, directed the respondents to payRs.9,00,000/- as compensation. Questioning the said order, the Governmentand their Officers have filed the present writ appeal.9. Heard Mr.P.Subramanian, learned Government Advocate for theappellants and Mr.V.Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent.10. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether thelearned single Judge is right in awarding compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- tothe writ petitioner merely on the basis of the averment in the affidavitwithout any acceptable evidence?11. There is no dispute that the husband of the petitioner viz.,Rajmohan died in police custody on 23.03.1995. The post-mortem reportand the enquiry report of the Sub Collector, Karur, conducted underSection 145 of the Police Standing Order, reveal that the deceasedRajmohan died in police custody. 12. It is the claim of the Government and their officers that as perG.O.Ms.No.153 Public (Law and Order-B) Department, dated 31.01.1998 in acase of (1) (a) death in Caste/communal clashes; (b) death due to Policetorture; (c) death due to Police firing and (d) rape by police (2)permanent incapacitation, the Collectors are empowered to sanction reliefto the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also their case that inasmuch asthe said amount was paid to the writ-petitioner, she is not entitled forany further amount. In any event, according to them, in the absence ofacceptable materials regarding the avocation, income and age of thedeceased as well as his family circumstances, this Court cannot pass anaward like a Civil Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. 13. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, thepetitioner, who is none else than the wife of the deceased, has stated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that at the time of the cause of action, her husband was aged about 29years, his date of birth being 08.05.1966. She also stated that herhusband was a fleet owner, operating a lorry bearing registration No.TNY8681. According to her, after deducting all expenses includinginsurance, fuel, maintenance etc, her husband was contributing Rs.6,000/-per month. It is also her claim that the deceased left two children agedabout 7 years and 5 years respectively as well as the mother aged about 55years. The learned single Judge, while considering the compensation tobe awarded for death of the deceased aged about 29 years at the time ofhis death, by following the decisions of the Apex Court, adopted themultiplier theory. There is no dispute that in a motor vehicle accident,in order to arrive at a just and proper compensation in the case ofdeath, the appropriate method to be applied is the multiplier method, asprovided in the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act.14. We have verified the factual details in the decisions relied on bythe learned single Judge. All those cases relate to death in motorvehicle accidents. It is made clear that we are not under estimating theright or entitlement of the writ petitioner, who lost her family breadwinner, while he was in police custody. Undoubtedly, she being the wife,her children and the mother, are entitled for adequate compensation.However, except mere statement in the affidavit that her husband was afleet owner, operating a lorry, she has not furnished or enclosed therequired materials such as registration certificate of the lorry orlorries, model, make, details regarding payment of income tax, informationregarding continuance of lorry business. If she possessed the abovementioned particulars or documents, nothing prevented her from placing iteither before the learned single Judge or before us. There is also noinformation as to the fact whether the petitioner re-married after thedeath of her husband Rajmohan. Bereft of all those relevant materials,we are of the view that the award of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation isundoubtedly on the higher side. Merely because the respondents have notspecifically denied all the above referred to details and sanctioned a sumof Rs.1,00,000/- from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, it cannot bepresumed that they accepted the avocation and income of the deceased. Inthe absence of such materials, we are of the view that lump sum amountcannot be granted as ordered by the learned single Judge. 15. Taking note of the fact that the deceased, aged about 29 years,died in police custody and of the fact that he left his wife, aged about27 years, two children, aged about 7 and 5 years respectively as well asthe mother, aged about 55 years, we are of the view that ends of justicewould be met by awarding a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees fivelakhs only) to the petitioner. It is brought to our notice that apartfrom payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by the District Collector, Karur, from theChief Minister's Relief Fund, on the orders of the Division Bench of thisCourt, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was also paid to the writ petitioner by wayof crossed Demand Draft on 05.04.2004. In view of the same, the balanceamount payable to the writ petitioner is only Rs.2,00,000/-. Inasmuch as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the writ petitioner, the Government isdirected to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner asordered above within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. If the petitioner has sufficient materials in the formof acceptable evidence and if she desires, she is free to approach theCivil Court. It is made clear that the time taken for prosecuting thewrit petition and writ appeal shall be excluded for the purpose oflimitation.16. With the above observation, the writ appeal is allowed in part.No costs. Consequently, WAMP No.2198 of 2004 is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.raaTo1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.3.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.4.The Director General of Police, Law and Order, Tamil Nadu, Madras-2.5.The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli, Tiruchi-1.+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 23339W.A.No.1169 of 2004mbs[co]Gp/17.4