IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.26544 of 2009 1.R.Krishnaveni 2.R.Pavithra 3.R.Manimekala 4.R.Praveena (petitioners 2 to 4 are minors rep by their mother and natural guardian R.Krishnaveni, 1st petitioner herein) .. Petitioners Vs. 1.The State rep by its Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order-E) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Udagamandalam, Nilgiris District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Udagamandalam, Nilgiris District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor, Nilgiris District. 5.The Superintendent, Ooty Sub-Jail, Nilgiris District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.The Inspector of Police, Ooty West Police Station, Nilgiris District. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to enhance the compensation amount from Rs.1,00,000/- into Rs.10,00,000/- and to pay to the petitioners for the custodial torture and murder of R.Ramasamy @ Komba inside the Ooty Sub-Jail. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.RM.Muthukumar, GA - - - - ORDER The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent State of Tamil Nadu to enhance the compensation from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.10 lakhs and to pay the same to the petitioners for the custodial torture and murder of the first petitioner's husband late Ramasamy @ Komba inside the Ooty Sub Jail. 2.In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 21.12.2009. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 12.3.2010 and this court had directed the respondents to produce a copy of the enquiry report submitted to the State Government. In the application for interim compensation of Rs.1 lakh, pending disposal of the writ petition, this court had dismissed the said application on 23.6.2010 by holding that such relief will be given only after the petitioner succeeds in the main writ petition. 3.On notice from this court, the Inspector of Police, Town West Police Station, Ooty has filed a counter affidavit, dated 24.8.2010. But the State Government has not filed any counter affidavit till date. However, the enquiry report was circulated for perusal by this court. 4.The first petitioner's husband Ramasamy @ Komba was taken as an under trial prisoner in connection with Crime No.204 of 2002 in E-1 Police station. He was lodged in the Sub Jail at Ooty. Since he became sick on the morning of 15.8.2002, he was taken to the Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hospital at Ooty and even before he could be checked by Doctors, the said Ramasamy collapsed and without any treatment, he died around 10.45 a.m. The matter was reported to the District Collector. On 16.8.2002, the first petitioner gave a complaint that her husband's death was due to torture in the police station and that she had demanded for judicial enquiry. Hence an enquiry under PSO 145 was ordered to be conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor. Therefore, an enquiry was held by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor. 5.In his enquiry report, dated 9.9.2002, the Revenue Divisional Officer found that the injuries suffered by the Ramasamy were not because of police attack and because of the villagers of Perar, who had attacked him. Two persons from the village one Rahamathullah and Rajamani had given confessional statements for having beaten the said Ramasamy. The jail officials were indifferent to the health condition of the said Ramasamy. Instead of providing appropriate immediate treatment, they allowed him to suffer for two hours with chest pain and this led to the hunger fast undergone by others. Therefore, he found that even though the attack was made by two private persons, but the attack was done in the presence of two policemen, i.e., Sub Inspector of Police Haridoss and the Constable Surendran. Therefore, he had recommended action against them. He had also recommended an action against the jail officials for not rendering appropriate medical treatment for the under trial prisoner. 6.The report was forwarded by the District Collector, Nilgiris and State Government had accepted the report and directed disciplinary action against the police officials in Kanthal police station. The Government had recommended a criminal action against Haridoss, Sub Inspector of Police and A.Rajan, Constable and in respect of M/s.Haridoss, Surendran, A.Rajan and Devadass Ravi, a departmental action was directed to be initiated. In respect of Mani and Beeman, the prison wardens, an action to be taken departmentally. The Director General of Police was directed to implement the order of the State Government for completing the enquiry. 7.In the meanwhile, the death of Ramasamy was reported to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The NHRC had issued a notice to the Chief Secretary asking him to explain as to what action was taken against the officials concerned, who were negligent in not giving treatment and also who were falsified the records regarding the injuries suffered by the said Ramasamy before his admission to the jail. It is to explain the circumstances, the State Government had forwarded the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1218, Public Law and Order Department, dated 25.10.2006. The NHRC by its proceedings had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ communicated to the State Government and recorded as follows: “The Commission has considered the report. The Government has ordered criminal prosecution of two police officials and two civilians mentioned in the reply. Departmental proceedings have ordered to be initiated against four police foficials and two prison officials for their failure to prove appropriate timely medical treatment. It was the duty of the State to protect the human life of a person in custody. The death of Ramasamy @ Komba aged 25 years has taken place in custody. In these circumstances, let a show cause notice be sent to Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai u/s 18(a)(i) of Protection of Human Rights Act as to why interim relief may not be recommended to be paid to the next of kin of the deceased.” 8.It is pursuant to the direction by the NHRC, the State Government had directed the compensation of Rs.1 lakh to be paid to the family of the deceased Ramasamy. The District Collector was authorised to draw the said amount and also recover the amount from the four policemen and two prison officials. But not satisfied with the paltry compensation paid, the petitioner has come before this court. 9.It was contended by the petitioners that the State Government do not have any reasonable formula for fixing the compensation. The petitioner belonged to SC community and the attack against the petitioner's husband was also an infringement of their right under the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act). 10.In the counter affidavit, it was contended that the formula which is arrived for the death of motor accidents cannot be accepted as a formula for fixing the compensation. Already Rs.10000/- was paid to the first petitioner under the Distress Relief Scheme. She is also getting Rs.400/- for destitute woman pension. 11.The counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon two judgments of this court. One in R.Dhanalakshmi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2004 WLR 346, wherein compensation of Rs.8 lakhs was directed to be paid. Further, a division bench of this court presided by A.P.Shah, C. J. (as he then was) in C.Thekkamalai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2006 WLR 13 had directed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to be paid as compensation. Therefore, in that context, the petitioners sought for enhanced compensation for the death of her husband, who was the breadwinner of the family. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12.The first respondent has not explained the rational behind ordering compensation. They have paid the standard amount of Rs.1 lakh which is paid in the normal course and it does not take note of circumstances of each case. Therefore, it is not a consolation for the petitioners' family. They have proposed to take disciplinary action against the policemen concerned. When once the State Government had accepted the vicarious liability because of the misconduct of its own servants in not protecting the life of the first petitioner's husband and that he was allowed to be beaten up mercilessly by the villagers, they had failed to discharge their duty to protect a citizen's life. Even assuming that the petitioner's husband was a man of bad character, but that is not a ground either to cause grievous injury or to falsify the records before admission to prison or the prison officials not to give appropriate medical treatment. As long as the petitioner's husband was an under trial, his life cannot be taken away by such callous indifference of officials of police department as well as officials of Sub Jail, Ooty. 13.Since the subordinate officials were solely responsible for the loss of life, they are bound to compensate the family of the first petitioner, who had lost her husband, who was not even convicted by any court. In such circumstance, the compensation fixed is considered very low and at the same time, this court cannot grant compensation prayed for by the petitioner, i.e., Rs.10 lakhs. In similar circumstance, this court had granted compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. Hence after giving credit to the amount of Rs.1 lakh already paid, this court hereby direct the first respondent to pay balance of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to an extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar vvk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law & Order-E) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Udagamandalam, Nilgiris District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Udagamandalam, Nilgiris District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor, Nilgiris District. 5.The Superintendent, Ooty Sub-Jail, Nilgiris District. 6.The Inspector of Police, Ooty West Police Station, Nilgiris District. cc to MR.GOVT PLEADER, Advocate SR.NO.61741 W.P.NO.26544 of 2009 RS (CO) NG 31/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/