MAHALAKSHMI Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, they being W.A. Nos.230 of 1999 and 2 of 2003. In the first-mentioned case one Mahalakshmi is the appellant while the second is filed by the Chairman and Managing Director, Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chennai 600 002. Both the appeals are against the judgment of the learned single Judge, who allowed the writ petition filed by Mahalakshmi and directed the payment of Rs.80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 1997 till date of payment. In this, the learned single Judge ratified the Award of the Arbitrator who was appointed during the pendency of the writ petition to go into the questions regarding the liability, if any, on the part of the Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board (in short "the Board") to pay the compensation for the loss of the life of the son of the petitioner. Following peculiar facts will highlight the grievance and help to understand the controversy involved.

(2.) On 19-3-1997 one Pandian, accompanied by his friends, went to Gandhinagar to his grandparents' house. Instead of going by the straight route, they took an unusual route where, they were required to cross a giant water-pipeline, which is erected and supposed to be maintained by the Board. They reached a spot, which was half a kilometer from the southern side of the ICF West Colony and at that time, the said Pandian and his friend Ramesh fell into said water-pipeline and were probably carried by the water gushing through the said pipeline and drowned. The petitioner, therefore, pleaded that the said water-pipeline broke as it was improperly maintained by the Board. A report was made to the police, who came on the spot along with the fire-service personnel and retrieved the bodies and also registered a case at K-7 ICF Police Station under Sec.174 of Criminal Procedure Code vide Crime No.347 of 1997. The petitioner pleaded that apart from maintaining the said water-pipeline, there was no notice cautioning the general public and prohibiting them from scaling over the said giant water-pipeline. It was also pleaded that while crossing the said pipeline, the cement-slab cracked and broke and that is how that the said Pandian fell into the water since the cement-slab caved in. It was then claimed that the said Pandian was sixteen years' old and had studied up to VII standard and was a bright student and he also used to work as a painter and used to earn Rs.3000 per month. Adequate compensation, therefore, was sought.

(3.) Learned single Judge, by his order, appointed an arbitrator as both the learned counsel agreed for the arbitration. A retired District Judge, Shri Meenakshisundaram, was appointed as Arbitrator to go into the claim. The Arbitrator filed the award dated 2-11-1998. In the Award, the Arbitrator found that the boy was aged eighteen years' old and his monthly income was Rs.1,000/- and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for a sum of Rs.1,51,200/- on that count. He also found that the petitioner had suffered a conventional loss of Rs.10,000/- and as such the total rounded off figure came to Rs.1,60,000/-. However, since the deceased died due to contributory negligence, the petitioner-mother would be entitled only to Rs.80,000/-, which was fifty percent of the entitlement. 3.1. The award was objected to by both the Board as also by the petitioner-mother. As per the petitioner, the award should have been for Rs.3,15,000/- and since the deceased was a minor, no question of any contributory negligence while, the case of the Board was that the concerned person had no business to scale over the water-pipeline and that was not a public road and therefore, the deceased was a trespasser. It was tried to be urged that the water-pipeline was being properly maintained. It was also urged that there was no evidence that there was any negligence shown on the other hand. It was the deceased who was to be blamed. 3.2. Learned single Judge accepted the award and ratified the same upholding the finding of facts arrived regarding the age and also the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner was found to be entitled. It is this order of the learned single Judge, which has been appealed against by both the sides.