Telangana High Court
Kandukuri Rama Krishna, vs The State Of Telangana Represented By on 24 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.3861 OF 2013
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
"... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
a) Direct the respondent No.1 to 10 to pay the exgratia amount/compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the dependent family in lieu of the untimely death of their minor sons by name Kandukuri Venkatesh, Kandukuri Venu and Ravula Narasimha Rao all aged 8 years at the time of death on 23.01.2011 at Kinnerasani Project (L.F. Head Sluices), Paloncha due to the gross negligence of the respondents
b) To direct the respondents to provide Luskar job to each of the dependent family besides.
c) Directing the respondents to initiate case, against the erring employees of Kinnerasani Project (L.F. Head Sluices), Paloncha who were responsible for the the untimely death of the above minor children, under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Mr. S. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government for Revenue for respondent Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9, learned Assistant Government Pleader for I&CAD, for respondent Nos.4 to 7, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.3 and 10.
2
JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013
3. The case of petitioners is that one child of each of the petitioners, aged around eight (8) years, who were students, three of them, died on 23.01.2011 in Kinnerasani Project.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that children of petitioners went to hear the sluices at Kinnerasani Project at Paloncha, while they were looking at the unprotected sluices, all of a sudden, all the three children slipped from the sluices and fell inside the Kinnerasani Project. As they did not know swimming, all the three children died.
5. It is submitted that gross negligence of respondent Nos.1 to 9 led to the accident. That the Minister of State of Andhra Pradesh visited the spot along with other villagers. It is further submitted that Minister discussed the issue with the Irrigation Department officials and respondent Nos.1 to 10 announced an ex-gratia of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the deceased families and one job of luskur post to each dependent family, and also promised to initiate criminal action against the respondent authorities. It is 3 JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013 also submitted that notices were issued to respondent authorities, which were served on respondent Nos.5 to 9, but there was no response.
6. It is submitted that petitioners approached the Chairman, Legal Services Authority, Kothagudem, seeking a direction to respondent Nos.5 to 9 for passing an award for payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and one luskur post to each of the deceased family members. That though notices were issued, when the matter was listed before the Legal Services Authority, the respondent authorities failed to fulfill the promises. It is pointed out that on 22.09.2012, the Mandal Legal Services Authority closed the petition granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the proper forum.
7. It is the case of petitioners that State Government is vicariously liable for gross negligence of authorities and having promised to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as ex-gratia besides one luskur post to each of the dependant families, yet the respondent authorities failed to take action. Hence, writ petition.
4
JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9 submitted that under 'Apathbandu Scheme 2013-14', an amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be released to the deceased family through bank accounts within seven (7) days from the date of death. Learned Assistant Government Pleader invited the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.7, Revenue (DM.I) Department, dated 06.03.2014, whereby the Government of Andhra Pradesh announced an amount of Rs.50,000/- to be paid for such of those deaths covered under the scheme. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.50,000/- each will be paid under 'Apathbandu Scheme' to below poverty line families in case of accidental death in the family w.e.f. 02.11.2013 and hence, the amount shall be paid in accordance with G.O.
9. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.
10. Petitioners are parents of three children, who were aged around eight (8) years. It is not in dispute that the three children were not aware of swimming and they 5 JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013 slipped and fell into Kinnerasani Project from the sluices when they visited the Project. The issue was reported in newspapers. As per the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Minister visited the spot and spoke to the Irrigation Department officials and with other respondent authorities. It is further averred that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as ex-gratia for each of the deceased family members and one job of luskur post is said to have been promised. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari (SMT) vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others 1. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:
"... 2. Six years old son of the appellant died as a result of falling in a ten feet deep sewerage tank in the city of Madras. The tank was not covered with a lid and was left open. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the appellant. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that in writ jurisdiction it was not possible to determine as to which of the respondents was negligent in leaving the sewerage tank uncovered.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the High Court judgment and direct that respondent 1, the State of Tamil Nadu 1 (1992) 2 SCC 223 6 JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013 shall pay to the appellant to sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) with interest at 12 per cent per annum from January 1, 1990 till the date of payment. The amount shall be paid within six weeks from today. It will be open to the State of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate proceedings to claim the said amount or any part thereof from any of the respondents or any other authority which might be responsible for keeping the sewerage tank open. The claim, if made, will be decided in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs."
11. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Court on its Own Motion vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others 2 and contended that after discussing the entire case law, the Division Bench saddled the liability. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:
"105. Keeping all these factors in view read with the inquiry report of the Divisional Commissioner, the Board Authorities had the major role and they have failed to exercise due care and caution, thus, are to be saddled with liability at least to the extent of 60%.
106. The unfortunate students were on excursion and the role of the College Authorities was also important. They should have ascertained all facts including the circumstances and other factors prevailing in the area, where they were planning to visit.
107. In Deep Chand Sood's case (supra), the school had arranged picnic for the students, 15 boys met with the same fate and the Court 2 2017 ACJ 1271 7 JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013 held that the school concerned is also liable, even though the school was not falling under the definition of State or instrumentality of the State as per the mandate of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
108. Accordingly, we deem it proper to hold that the College is liable to the extent of 30%.
109. In view of the above, the State is also saddled with liability to the extent of 10%.
110. Learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel representing the parents of the deceased students have placed on record the material, which do disclose that in addition to Rs.5,00,000/- awarded as interim compensation, the insurance amount, the ex- gratia by the States of Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and also tuition fee has been refunded by the College, the details of which are as under:
Sl.No. Details Amount (per student)
1. State of H.P. ₹ 1.50 lac
2. State of Telangana ₹ 5.00 lac
3. State of Andhra Pradesh ₹ 5.00 lac
4. Insurance amount ₹ 2.00 lac
5. Refund of tuition fee ₹ 45,000/- - ₹ 1.74 lac
111. The question is - whether this amount is to be adjusted towards the total amount of compensation? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons:
112. This issue was raised before the Apex Court and other High Courts in the cases discussed herein above and it was held that the perks, fee, the insurance amount and other such amounts cannot be deducted.
113. The tuition fee and the insurance amount was their own money. The other amounts granted by the State Governments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh as ex-gratia 8 JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013 have no role to play. It is just the gesture of the State Governments.
114. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and the other High Courts, this amount is to be excluded from the amount of compensation.
115. Having glance of the above discussions, Rs.20,00,000/-, including the interim compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from today till its final realisation is awarded in favour of the parents of each of the deceased students and against the Board, College and the State of Himachal Pradesh in the ratio of 60:30:10.
116. They are directed to deposit the amount after making deduction of ₹ 5,00,000/- awarded as interim compensation paid by the Board and the College within eight weeks before the Registry of this Court.
117. On deposition of the amount, the same be released in favour of the parents through payee's account cheque or by depositing in the their respective accounts, the details of which shall be furnished by the learned Amicus Curiae or the learned counsel representing the parents of the deceased students, in the Registry.
118. It is made clear that the findings recorded herein above are only prima facie in nature in order to grant compensation, as per the discussions made herein above, cannot be made basis for recording judgment(s) in any civil suit, criminal proceedings or departmental proceedings.
119. Before parting with, we deem it proper to place on record a word of appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, learned Advocate General, learned Advocates who appeared in this case, the Divisional Commissioner Inquiry Officer and the other officers, who have assisted this Court.9
JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013
120. Having said so, the lis is disposed of along with all pending applications, as indicated herein above."
12. It is not in dispute that the children of the petitioners fell into Kinnerasani Project and died.
13. The contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.10 are as follows:
"3. It is respectfully submitted that the 3rd petitioner Ravula Rama Rao had lodged a complaint on 24.01.2011 with the Station House Officer, Palonch Rural Police Station, stating that, on 23.01.2011 the petitioners sons by name Ravula Narasimha, Kandukuri Venkatesh, Kandukuri Venu have visited the Kinnerasani Project on 23.01.2011 and fell in the said Project canal and died. In this connection a case in Cr.No.5/2011 U/s. 174 Cr.P.C. have registered on 24.01.2011 on the file of Paloncha Rural Police Station, Khammam District. It is submitted that, the investigation revealed that, the sons of the petitioners accidentally drowned into the said canal and died. After obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem vide C.No.5/Cr/SDOK/2011, dt.04.03.2011 the final report was filed on 06.03.2011 before the Hon'ble Mandal Executive Magistrate, Paloncha, Khammam Dist.
4. It is respectfully submitted that with regard to payment of ex-gratia to the petitioners of the police are nothing to do. The Irrigation Department is the competent authorities to pay the ex-gratia to the petitioners herein.
5. It is respectfully submitted that, after going through the contents of the affidavit, it is revealed that, the 9th respondent Revenue 10 JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013 Divisional Officer, Paloncha has addressed a letter to the 5th respondent Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Paloncha requesting to make necessary arrangement for payment of ex- gratia amount to each of the deceased family. It is also revealed that the petitioners herein also approached the Hon'ble Mandal Legal Services Committee (V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge) Kothagudem vide PLC SR No.85/2011 and sought for a direction against the Irrigation and Revenue Department to pay the ex-gratia to them. It is submitted that, by order dated 15.05.2012 the Hon'ble Committee issued notice to the District Collector, Khammam.
6. It is respectfully submitted that, the Irrigation and revenue departments are liable to pay the ex-gratia if any to the petitioners herein. It is submitted that, this respondent has nothing to do payment of ex-gratia to the petitioners herein. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent authority for ex-gratia. Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed against this respondent."
14. On a perusal of the contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.10, it is apparent that on investigation, the children (sons) of petitioners accidentally drowned into Kinnerasani Project and died. It is further averred that the Irrigation Department and the Revenue Department are the competent authorities to pay ex-gratia to the petitioners.
11
JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013
15. On a perusal of the contents of the counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.9 and 10, it is evident that the deaths occurred due to an accidental slip in the rear bund, resulting in drowning. It is also evident that safety measures like sign boards were not present.
16. The fact that there was enough supervision and maintenance and enough safety measures such as sign boards were existing is not forthcoming from the counter affidavits. The investigation of Superintendent of Police revealed that sons of the petitioners accidentally drowned in the canal. These facts are suffice to conclude that petitioners are eligible for the ex-gratia amount.
17. As far as the question of one job of luskur post to each of the dependant family members is concerned, this Court is not inclined to accede to the contention of learned counsel for petitioners. The payment of ex-gratia amount for an accidental death, for absence of the safety measures, is one aspect, issuing directions for providing one job of luskur post to each of the family is entirely different. This Court cannot show such indulgence for issuance of any 12 JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013 direction for a job, children were minors, and the loss of dependency is one of the criteria that is usually considered. Parents are not dependents on minors.
18. Reliance placed on G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 06.03.2014, is misconceived. As per the said G.O., the amounts are to be paid in case of accidental death in a family w.e.f. 02.11.2013. In the present case, the deaths of children occurred on 23.01.2011.
19. Be that as it may, the contents of clause 13 of G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 06.03.2014, are as follows:
"People, who die due to drowning, also are covered under "Apathbandu" scheme, as it is an accidental death."
20. As per clause 13 of the G.O., people, who die due to drowning, are sanctioned an amount of Rs.50,000/- within seven days from the date of death. In the present case, the death of three children, aged around eight (8) years, occurred due to accidental slip and fell from the sluices into the Kinnerasani Project. It is not in dispute that no precautionary measures were found in place. Petitioners requested for an ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as 13 JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013 early as on 05.02.2011 i.e., within a period of two weeks. This Court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be paid to each of the petitioners, subject to condition that if any amounts have been paid earlier, the same shall be considered while arriving at the total amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.
21. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, I&CAD, Irrigation Department, respondent No.5, before the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Authority (at paragraph No.4, page No.25 of the documents annexed) that an amount of Rs.75,000/- each has been received by the family members of three children. The amounts already paid shall be given credit i.e., those amounts paid shall be deducted from Rs.2,00,000/- to arrive at the balance to be paid.
22. The respondent authorities shall pay the said amount within a period of eight (8) weeks. It is made clear that no interest shall be paid on the amount arrived at. The office of Collector shall coordinate with other offices and arrive at the figure after giving due credit to the amounts received by 14 JAK, J W.P.No.3861 of 2013 the deceased families. Even though it is contended that Rs.75,000/- has been paid by the contractor, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same shall be taken into account including any other amounts, if paid, the remaining amount shall be paid through the office of Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem.
23. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date:24.11.2025 KH