Madras High Court
S.Ramalingam vs The Managing Director on 1 March, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.03.2012 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.22882 of 2007 S.Ramalingam ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai -35. 2.Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Chennai - 9. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to ensure that the apartments in foreshore estate are maintain properly to ensure the safety of the residents and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner towards the expenses, mental agony and compensation. For Petitioner : Ms.R.Balambigai Gowri For Respondents : Mr.R.Jayaseelan, TNHB (R1) Mr.V.Subbiah, SGP (R2) O R D E R
The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to ensure that the apartments built in Foreshore Estate are maintained properly so as to ensure the safety of the residents and for a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner towards the expenses incurred by him and also compensation for the injuries suffered by him due to the collapse of the roof in which the petitioner was living in Flat No.3, Block No.RA at Foreshore Estate.
2. When the matter came up on 06.07.2007, this Court ordered notice to the respondents. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 05.01.2011. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board dated Nil (November 2007).
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner sought for information from the State Government under the Right to Information Act. In response to the same, on behalf of the first respondent, it was informed that the Government has sought for report from the Director of Medical Education and the report was still awaited and further action will be action to reimburse the medical expenses incurred on receipt of such report. Therefore, this Court by an order dated 12.11.2010 directed to get a report from the Director of Medical Education within a period of three weeks.
4. Subsequently, as the report was not forthcoming, an application was filed in M.P.No.1 of 2010 seeking for further time extension. When the matter came up on 05.01.2011, a copy of the Government order in G.O(Rt)No.359, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 16.12.2010 was produced before this Court. Hence, the application for time extension was closed.
5. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-
The petitioner was allotted a flat at the Foreshore Estate in Flat No.3, RA Block under the rental housing scheme. On the midnight of 05.08.2004, the roof of the bedroom got collapsed and his ten year old daughter suffered serious injuries. She was immediately taken to the hospital and it took 30 days for her to resume normal life. It was contended by the petitioner that since there was a negligence on the part of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in not maintaining the building properly, the accident had occurred and the petitioner had to incur expenditure towards the medial expenses of his daughter's injury. Hence, for the medical expenses, mental agony and suffering, damages has to be levied on the Housing Board which was collecting rent from the inmates.
6. It was admitted by the Housing Board that the Tamil Nadu Government Rental Housing Scheme Flats were constructed in Foreshore Estate during the year 1963 and the buildings were damaged over the years due to sea breeze and salinity. A committee was formed as per Board Resolution No.5 dated 12.06.2003 to assess the soundness of the buildings. During February 2004, the Committee recommended to pull down the buildings and to categorise the buildings into 'A' and 'B'. The petitioner's flat in 'RA3' comes under the category 'B'. Based on the recommendation of the Committee, notices were issued to allottees to vacate the flats. The petitioner was well aware of these issues. But he did not vacate the flat. Even though there was a proposal to demolish the buildings, proper attention was given to the maintenance of the buildings to safeguard the allottees till such time all the occupants vacate the flats. The petitioner had vacated the flat on 30.08.2004. Even at that time, there were several other allottees who were still occupying the flats and were yet to vacate their flats. It is not correct to state that the entire roof of the bed room caved-in. On the other hand, it is admitted that a portion of the bottom ceiling approximately cover measuring 40 sq.ft. and 1 = inches thickness fall down. It cannot cause any major injury. But the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- lakhs which is fanciful and not based upon any material.
7. In the order issued by the State Government based upon the report called for from medical Education vide G.O.(Rt) Housing and Urban Development Department, it was ordered as follows:-
"In his petition first read above, the petitioner Thiru S.Ramalingam has requested Government for reimbursement of Medical expenses of Rs.11,049.35/- incurred by him for the injuries caused to his daughter due to the fall of the ceiling of the Government rental quarters No.3 in RA Block, Foreshore Estate, Chennai.
2. In his letter second read above, the Director of Medical Education, Chennai -10 has stated that the claim of the petitioner satisfies the Emergency condition laid down as per GO (Ms)No.1023, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 17.06.1980 and the applicant is eligible for medical reimbursement.
3.The Government after careful consideration and in consultation with Director of Medical Education, partially accept the claim of the petitioner referred to in para 1 above and accord sanction for a sum of Rs.2744/- (Rupees Two thousand seven hundred forty four only) as detailed below, towards the reimbursement of Medical expenses incurred by him for the injuries caused to his daughter due to fall of ceiling of the Government quarters in No.3, RA Block, Foreshore Estate, Chennai...."
After setting out the hospital expenditure in paragraph No.3, the Managing Director of the Housing Board was directed to settle the amount.
8. From the above, the following facts emerges:-
i) The roof of the bed room of the Government quarters in No.3, RA occupied by the petitioner got caved-in on 05.08.2004.
ii)The petitioner's daughter, who was ten years old got injured when a cement slab fell on her. This led to his daughter getting treated in the hospital thereby incurring considerable expenditure on the part of the petitioner.
iii)Though the petitioner claimed Rs.11,049.35/- what was sanctioned by the State Government was only Rs.2,744/- thereby leaving the petitioner incurring an extra expenditure of around Rs.8,300/- approximately.
9. The fact that the Housing Board had directed the occupants to vacate as the building was unsafe will not mitigate their responsibility in maintaining the buildings in a safe condition. On the other hand, it was the admission of the Housing Board that they had taken precaution to repair the buildings. Ultimately, the buildings were pulled down as No.3 RA Block comes under the 'B' category and though the petitioner had vacated the premises, there was still other occupants who are continuing to occupy the buildings.
10. Under the said circumstances, whether the Housing Board can be held responsible for the injury suffered by the petitioner's daughter and whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation for the collapse of the bed room ceiling and the injury suffered by his daughter thereby incurring expenditure towards medical treatment is the only question to be decided in the writ petition.
11. The fact that the State Government is willing to come forward to assess the medical expenditure and give a direction to the Housing Board to reimburse the same is borne out by the Government Order issued by the State Government referred to above. That a ten year old girl during the middle of the night suddenly stood suffered grievous injury thereby getting hospitalised for treatment can never be suitably compensated whatever may be the quantum of compensation awarded. This Court in more than one occasions has awarded damages/compensation for the suffering due to the negligence of the State or its instrumentalities. It is unnecessary to reproduce them here. Compensation has been awarded for causing injury, torture, suffering due to mob violence, performance of wrong medical surgical procedure, etc.,
12. In the present case, the facts are not in dispute and therefore, it is unnecessary to relegate the parties to seek for compensation before a civil forum. Admittedly, Tamil Nadu Housing Board is a statutory body constituted by the Act of Tamil Nadu legislature and when once it built tenements under rental scheme and lets out the same on rental basis, it is bound to maintain the buildings so as to keep it safe for the occupants to reside. In the present case, their own committee has recommended pulling down of the buildings which have become deteriorated due to natural causes and perhaps even for sub-standard material being used in the construction of buildings.
13. Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner will have to be suitably compensated for the suffering caused to her daughter due to the unsafe condition of the building where even the ceiling of the bed room caved-in and his ten year old innocent daughter was injured badly. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the first respondent Housing Board to provide compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the petitioner for the pain, suffering and the mental agony caused due to the unsafe condition of the building maintained by the first respondent Housing Board. The said payment shall be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and it does not include the amount ordered to be paid by the State Government towards medical expenditure. Parties are allowed to bear their own costs.
svki To
1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai -35.
2.Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Chennai 9