Fatal Accidents Act| 'Writ Plea Maintainable As Tort Feasors Were Govt Agencies/Servants': Allahabad HC Awards ₹50L Compensation To Widow
The Allahabad High Court entertained a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a claim of compensation for tortious liability as the deceased employee was a government servant residing in official accommodation and the tortious liability was on the government itself.While entertaining the writ petition, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice...
The Allahabad High Court entertained a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a claim of compensation for tortious liability as the deceased employee was a government servant residing in official accommodation and the tortious liability was on the government itself.
While entertaining the writ petition, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held
“We are mindful, under the Act, such action may normally be brought by filing a proper civil suit. In face of that remedy available under the common law, this Court may not readily exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in each and every matter involving claim for such compensation. By nature, such claims if made against private parties or involving disputed facts may never be entertained in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court observed that when given a chance, the State had failed to meet the ends of justice by denying compensation to the family of the deceased. Accordingly, the Court held that relegating the matter to a forum of alternate remedy would serve no useful purpose.
Factual Background
Petitioner's husband, Dr. Ravindra Mohan Prasad was posted as Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Mirzapur Division, Mirzapur and had been allotted official accommodation. On 17th July, 2010 at about 5:40 am, while Dr. Prasad was asleep at that official accommodation, a blast occurred at the storage facility of the Rural Engineering Services, Mirzapur in the adjoining premise. As a result, Maxphalt/Bitumen seeped into the residential premises of the deceased causing 70% burn injuries.
Though he was hospitalized at the SIPS Super Speciality Hospital Burn and Trauma Center, Lucknow, he died during treatment. Though Chief Veterinary Officer, Mirzapur lodged F.I.R under Section 337 and 338 I.P.C. against Assistant Engineer, Store and Junior Engineer, Store, the outcome of the proceedings are unknown.
High Court Verdict
The Court held that the aforesaid tortious act is liable to be compensated by the wrongdoer under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
“In Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 1 SCC 690, an issue arose if a claim for tortious liability could arise where death was caused to the victim as a result of injuries suffered as he jumped from a moving truck that caught fire while plying. It was answered in the affirmative. Applying the principle res ipsa loquitur the claim made was sustained by the Supreme Court and High Court decision to the contrary was reversed.”
Further reliance was placed on Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, wherein the Supreme Court held that compensation could be claimed by the legal representatives of the deceased for a claim compensation for death arising from a tortious act. Accordingly, the Court held that a substantive right existed in favour of the petitioner to claim compensation for the death of her husband due to neglect/ default on part of the State functionaries, specifically the Rural Engineering Services.
“We have no doubt as to the sustainability of the same as the tortious event is attributable to the conduct of the employees/servants of the State who stored the molten Maxphalt/Bitumen in the tank that suffered a blast leading to its seepage into the official residence of the deceased causing the injuries and his death.”
The Court observed that the petitioner's husband was present in the official residence because of the government posting in Mirzapur and the storage facility was also owned by the State Government. Though the act of wrongful neglect or default resulting in the blast and consequent events is to be examined in criminal and /or departmental proceedings, the deceased was an “unsuspecting and non-contributory victim of that tortious act.” Accordingly, the petitioner is liable to be compensated for the death of her husband.
The Court held that normally claims of compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act may be made by filing a civil suit. However, since a government employee died and the tortious act was attributable to the State and its employees, the petition was entertained.
The twelve-member Committee constituted by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, though admitted the accident, denied compensation to the petitioner on the grounds that the deceased, being off duty, was not covered under any existing policy.
The Court observed that the blast of the Maxphalt/Bitumen tank was not a predictable event, but a mere accident. However, if it was assumed that such chemical was hazardous and may blast, storing it in such close proximity to the official accommodation established neglect on the part of State functionaries.
“In that event, it would remain an inescapable conclusion that it was known from before that hazardous material may seep out from the storage facility into the adjoining residential premises and cause severe injuries, including death. Thus the principle of res ipsa loquitor wholly applies to the present facts.”
The bench headed by Justice Singh held that the tortious liability of the State stood proven.
“The fact that the State authorities have chosen not to proceed against the negligent agent is a matter of policy or inaction. While good governance may have compelled the administrators to take decisive, prompt and adequate action in real time to ensure that due remedy was made available to the victim and also to ensure that such occurrences do not reoccur, that has not been done. The grief expressed at the occurrence is no compensation for their tortious act.”
Rejecting the reasoning provided by the Committee for not providing compensation, the Court held that “in the first place accidental occurrences by very nature do involve the commission of tortious act as may expose the wrongdoer to a civil liability of compensation. Therefore, merely because the occurrence was accidental, would make no difference to the liability to which the State and its functionaries stood exposed.”
The Court further held that the petitioner's husband was present in his official accommodation because of his posting in Mirzapur. He was not on vacation or residing in a non-approved private accommodation when the accident happened.
The Court held that under the Act and by the very nature of tortious liability, it is not dependent on whether the deceased was on active government duty or whether the occurrence (whether accidental or otherwise) took place while he was performing such government duty. Tortious liability arose upon commission of the accidental occurrence. Thus, the Court held that the State was bound to compensate the petitioner.
The Court held that grant of compassionate appointment which is otherwise a part of service conditions of the deceased, cannot be said to take away the right to compensation for tortious injury suffered.
“In any case, compensation for a tortious liability, may never be examined and/or quantified on the test of an ex-gratia payment. That is an entirely different concept where the payment arises from the grace shown by the payer and not from the entitlement of the payee. It is not applicable to tortious liabilities. Then, compensation for the tortious liability thus incurred may not be defeated occasioned by grant of compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased and/or upon payment of terminal dues, to his wife.”
Noting that the tort feasor were government agencies and servants accountable to the petitioner, the Court held that the State had failed to ensure that justice is meted out expeditiously.
Accordingly, the Court proceeded to award compensation of Rs. 50 Lakh to be paid to the petitioner by State of UP within a period of three months from the date of the order with interest on that amount @ 6 % per annum from the date of occurrence till the date of actual payment.
Case Title: Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - C No. - 30866 of 2011]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 490