Madras High Court
V.Parthasarathy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 November, 2019
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
W.P.No.5126 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 19..11..2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Writ Petition No.5126 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2016
V.Parthasarathy
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Tiruvallur
Tiruvallur District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ambattur,
Tiruvallur District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Ambattur Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
K-19, Koyambedu Police Station,
Chennai.
... Respondents
1 of 9
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.5126 of 2015
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to
pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the
petitioner for the loss of visions due to the burn injuries sustained in
an acid attack and for loss of earning capacity and also to meet out
the expenses towards medical treatment, after care and
rehabilitation.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manohar
For Respondent(s) : Mr.I.Sathish,
AGP for RR1 to 5
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents in the nature of mandamus, directing them to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for the loss of visions due to the injuries sustained by him in an acid attack and to meet out the expenses towards medical treatment.
2. According to the petitioner, there was a dispute between one Mahesh and the petitioner's landlord. When the petitioner 2 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.5126 of 2015 intervened, the said Mahesh had thrown acid on the face of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner had lost his vision in right eye and has been suffering from low blurry vision in left eye. On a complaint given by him, a case was registered in Crime No.511 of 2013 on the file of the 5th respondent for alleged offences under Section 341, 324, and 307 of IPC against Mahesh and the case is pending. For the injuries sustained on the eyes, the petitioner is still undergoing treatment and the petitioner is put to bear huge expenses towards post care treatment and for rehabilitation. Therefore, he sent a representation dated 17.07.2013 to the respondents seeking compensation. But, there is no response from any of the respondents. Hence, this writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5 and also perused the records carefully.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a victim of an acid attack and as per the judgement of 3 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.5126 of 2015 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi v. Union of India, [2014 (4) SCC 427], the petitioner is entitled for compensation of minimum Rs.3,00,000/-. Though a representation has been sent by the petitioner to the respondents seeking compensation, so far no order has been passed on the same by the respondents.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the criminal case registered against Mahesh is pending and unless the accused of acid attack case is found guilty by the court of law, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation. Therefore, the respondent could not act on the representation submitted by the petitioner for compensation.
6. have considered the rival submissions carefully.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi v. Union of India, [2014 (4) SCC 427] considered the question of payment of compensation to the victims or their dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime, require rehabilitation and 4 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.5126 of 2015 directed a minimum of Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid to the victims of the acid attack irrespective of the fact whether there is a scheme for victim compensation in existence in the respective States or not. The relevant portion of the judgement reads as follows:- .
"13. We are informed that pursuant to this provision, 17 States and 7 Union Territories have prepared “Victim Compensation Scheme” (for short “the Scheme”). As regards the victims of acid attacks, the compensation mentioned in the Scheme framed by these States and Union Territories is un-uniform. While the State of Bihar has provided for compensation of Rs 25,000 in such Scheme, the State of Rajasthan has provided for Rs 2 lakhs of compensation. In our view, the compensation provided in the Scheme by most of the States/Union Territories is inadequate. It cannot be overlooked that acid attack victims need to undergo a series of plastic surgeries and other corrective treatments. Having regard to this problem, the learned Solicitor General suggested to us that the compensation by the States/Union Territories for acid attack victims must be enhanced to at least Rs 3 lakhs as the aftercare and rehabilitation cost. The suggestion of the
5 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.5126 of 2015 learned Solicitor General is very fair.
14. We, accordingly, direct that the acid attack victims shall be paid compensation of at least Rs 3 lakhs by the State Government/Union Territory concerned as the aftercare and rehabilitation cost. Of this amount, a sum of Rs 1 lakh shall be paid to such victim within 15 days of occurrence of such incident (or being brought to the notice of the State Government/Union Territory) to facilitate immediate medical attention and expenses in this regard. The balance sum of Rs 2 lakhs shall be paid as expeditiously as may be possible and positively within two months thereafter. The Chief Secretaries of the States and the Administrators of the Union Territories shall ensure compliance with the above direction."
8. Thus, the petitioner being a victim in the acid attack is entitled for compensation as per the preposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi's case, cited supra and the 2nd respondent is the competent person to decide the quantum of compensation. The petitioner claims that he had lost visions in both eyes and the loss of vision rendered him unfit to take up any 6 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.5126 of 2015 employment.
9. The issue of compensation can be decided only after holding a summary enquiry by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.07.2013 for compensation on merits and pass suitable orders in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi's case [cited supra]. A representation is said to have been sent by the petitioner as early as in the year 2013 and almost 5 years have been elapsed since then. Thus, in the perception of this court, directing the petitioner to submit a copy of the representation to the 2nd respondent along with a copy of this order in order to avoid the possible loss of time in searching the representation of the petitioner given long back would be more appropriate.
In the result, the petitioner is directed to submit a copy of the representation dated 17.07.2013 to the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 7 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.5126 of 2015 along with a copy of this order and on such representation, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same in the light of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi v. Union of India, [2014 (4) SCC 427] and pass appropriate appropriate orders thereof on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
Index : yes / no 19..11..2019
Internet : yes / no
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
kmk
To
1.The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Tiruvallur Tiruvallur District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Ambattur, Tiruvallur District.
4.The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
5.The Inspector of Police, K-19, Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai. 8 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.5126 of 2015 V.BHARATHIDASAN.J., kmk Writ Petition No.5126 of 2015
19..11..2019 9 of 9 http://www.judis.nic.in