Father Who Lost Son In Drain Accident 10 Years Ago Gets 5 Lakh Compensation After Karnataka High Court Slams Municipality

The Karnataka High Court recently admonished the Hospete Municipal Council for delaying the compensation to a father for the death of his 6-year old son ten years ago after falling into a drain.

The Court pulled up the Council for not acting on the previous Court orders toconsider the representation of the father for compensation and chastised its "contumacious conduct" which forced the hapless man to approach the Court on three occasions over ten years.

The Court also reminded that n terms of Section 39 of the National Disaster Management  Act, it is necessary for the State to upkeep and safe keep the interest of the citizens from the grass root to the metropolis so that such incidents do not repeat.

"In terms of Section 39 of the Act, it is necessary for every Municipal Authority or the Authority in which the land would come to safe keep and bear in mind the interests of the citizens. This appears to have been given a complete go-bye in the case at hand. It is not just “one life” it is “even one life”. A precious life is lost due to the negligent act of the Authorities.It is negligence and culpable negligence on the part of the 1st respondent," the Court said.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna  was hearing a petition filed by one Karan Singh S Rajpurohit who sought for compensation on account of the death of his 6-year-old son, who on 15-07-2013, fell in an open drain at Hospete during the heavy rains.

The petitioner claimed that after about 3 months of the incident he sought compensation on account of the death of his son on sheer negligence of the City Municipal Council, Hospete. The moment the claim is made, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner himself by the Officers of Hosapete alleging offence punishable under Section 176 of the IPC. The High Court quashed the said case in 2013.

Even after several representations being made and court orders directing the council to consider the representation, no order of compensation was passed. This forced the petitioner to approach the court for the third time.

It was said “Petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Act with particular reference to Section 39 of the Act. It is sheer callousness on the part of the State in not granting any compensation despite passage of 10 years of the petitioner wanting to get compensation, on the death of his son.”

During the course of hearing of the petition, on directions of the court, the Hospete Municipal Council decided to grant compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. The petitioner accepted the compensation amount, on which the respondents sought closure of the present proceedings. However, the Court chastised the Municipality for not complying with the earlier orders and proceeded to impose an additional cost of Rs 1 lakh on the Municipality and directed to it pay interest on the compensation amount.

It then said “A representation is given on 01-11-2021, representation is received along with the order of this Court, and even then no order is passed. Therefore, it was a clear case of contumacious contempt on the part of the respondents to have ignored the order passed by this Court, which had clear directions that just and adequate compensation be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner now had to again knock at the doors of this Court.”

Further it said “Holding the petition, time was granted for compliance, it is complied within two weeks from the date of said direction. Therefore, it is not that the order was not compliable, but it is the display of callousness and recalcitrance, to the orders passed by this Court, such act of the State is sans countenance.”

The court then opined “It cannot be forgotten that sudden loss of a son or a daughter is a terrible blow to the parents. One of the most painful moments of one’s life is to be the pall bearer of a deceased child. Emotional vaccum left by the sudden departure of a child cannot be filled by monetary compensation but still to ameliorate the emotional vacuum left by the child, monetary compensation is paid to the parents.”

Accordingly it imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh and directed that the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of completion of 3 months, from the date of death of the child i.e., 15-07-2013. Therefore, interest at 6% on the said Rs.5,00,000 shall be paid from 15-10- 2013 till the date it reaches the petitioner and it shall reach the petitioner within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

It added “In the event it would not reach the doors of the petitioner within 6 weeks, he would become entitled to interest at 12% from the date on which it became payable till it is paid and the cost of Rs.1,00,000, would be increased by Rs.50,000, month on month till it reaches the petitioner.”

It clarified that “It is open to the State to fix accountability on such callous ignorance of the claim of the petitioner throughout and recover the interest and cost from the erring personnel in a manner known to law.”

Appearance: Advocate V Vidya Iyer for Petitioner.

Advocate Shivaraj S Balloli for R1.

HCGP V.S. Kalasurmath for R2-R4.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 433

Case Title: Karan Singh S Rajpurohit And The City Municipal Council Hosapete & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 103849 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order