Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: collapse of balcony in D. Maakbul Basha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its ... on 5 April, 2002Matching Fragments
1. The petitioner, who is the father of Mohideen Basha @ Ghouse Mohideen, aged about 17 years at the time of occurrence, has come up before this Court by way of this writ petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of his son.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows :-
The petitioner, his wife and other family members, including Mohideen Basha @ Ghouse Mohideen (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") were residing at No.52 CB H/B, Parthasarathy Nagar, Chennai - 21. The said flat belongs to Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, the second respondent herein. Due to the poor maintenance of the flat by the second respondent, when the deceased was sleeping under the Balcony on 06.04.1998 at about 12.15 in the midnight, the balcony collapsed, and he sustained injuries. Inspite of treatment given to him, he succumbed to injuries on 07.04.1998 at about 04.00 p.m. A complaint was also registered in Crime No.503 of 1998 on the file of the Washermanpet Police Station. The petitioner was given a sum of Rs.15,000/- by the Government for funeral and other preliminary expenses by G.O.Ms.No. 720 Revenue NC 1(1) Department dated 31.08.1998. The petitioner also requested the respondents for an appointment on compassionate ground. Since no action was taken on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place due to the negligence on the part of the respondent / Board in not maintaining the balcony properly and therefore, the respondents are bound to compensate the petitioner due to the loss of his son.
4. Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, on the other hand, would submit that there was no obligation on the part of the Slum Clearance Board to maintain the flats as out 120 flats, 119 flats have been allotted on lease cum sale agreement and thereafter the allottees alone should maintain the flats. Learned counsel would further submit that in any case, the balcony was properly maintained by the Slum Clearance Board, but the same was used for other purposes for storing materials etc., and therefore, the same might be the cause of collapse of the balcony. Learned counsel further submitted that the writ petition, seeking for an award of compensation is not maintainable in view of the reported judgment in TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD ..VS.. SUMATHI AND OTHERS (A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1603) Learned counsel also submitted that there is no material to show that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.300/- per month at the time of occurrence.
7. In our case, the facts of the case are not disputed as after the occurrence, a complaint was registered by Washermenpet Police in Crime No.503 of 1998 on the same day. The injured was admitted to Stanley Government Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. Taking into consideration of the death of the deceased, the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 720 Revenue NC 1(1) Department dated 31.08.1998 awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- to meet the initial funeral and other expenses. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, in paragraph 4, it is stated that the respondent / Board has periodically attending to common structural repairs based on the representations made by the allottees which include repairing of roofs, staircases, strengthening of ceiling and outside plastering works. However, collapse of the balcony is sought to be justified on the ground that some people used the same as store rooms for storing firewoods or other domestic materials, and some other even built concrete structure over the balcony for breaking the firewood and these activities might have caused the collapse. In view of the said statement it is clear that there is no disputed question as to the extensive damage caused to balcony, and the respondent / Board is maintaining the Balcony. In view of the above undisputed question, I do not think the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent holding that the writ petition is not maintainable is applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. Coming to the next question of negligence, learned counsel submitted that it is not disputed that the petitioner was residing in the plot in question along with his family members including the deceased. It is also not disputed that the staircases are maintained by the respondent / board as is stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit. The flat in question belongs to the Board as the same was not allotted on lease cum sale basis. Hence, the Board being the owner of the flat is under obligation to maintain the same as it had only rented the flat. The fact that the deceased died only due to the collapse of the balcony of the flat is also not disputed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that some people used the balcony for storing materials and that is the cause of collapse cannot be a ground to disown the responsibility of the respondent Board. It is also for the respondent Board to see that the balcony meant for specific purposes, are not used for other purposes. The officers of the respondent / Board miserably failed in preventing the use of balcony for other purposes. Therefore only extensive damage was caused to the balcony which ultimately collapsed and the son of the petitioner was killed. If the officers of the respondent Board shown sufficient care in not allowing the allottes or other tenaments to use the balcony for other purposes, the occurrence would not have occurred. Therefore, in my considered view, the collapse of the balcony was due to the negligence on the part of the respondent / Board as they have not taken due care to see that the balcony is not used for any other purposes, except the purpose for which it was provided. When once it is found that balcony collapsed due to the failure on the part of the Board to maintain the same properly and allowed the balcony to be used for other purposes, there is no escape for the respondent / Board except to compensate the petitioner for the loss of life of his son.