P.Thangavel, J.: This writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner as appellant against the order of the learned single Judge dated 31.1.1997 and made in W.P. No.15385 of 1991 on the file of this Court. 2. The father of the appellant, Krishnaswamy Naidu had left his house for purchase of pesticides and other agricultural requirements to the office of Villivakkam Panchayat Union and Cholavaram Panchayat Union on 23.9.1991 and he did not return to house for two days. The appellant went to Government General Hospital at Madras, enquired about his father and came to know that his father was admitted in Government General Hospital on 23.9.1991 and he died at 1.00 p.m. on 24.9.1991. The body of his father, Krishnaswamy Naidu, was identified by the appellant, after seeing the articles carried by his father deposited in the mortuary. Since the father of the appellant was admitted in the hospital as an accident case because of head injury sustained by him due to fall on the road, he was asked to get slip from the police concerned for conducting post-mortem on the body of the deceased. The dead body of his father was given token No.32. The name of the deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu was entered in the register since earlier the name of the deceased was written as unknown. The body of the father of the appellant was identified to the Head Constable attached to the C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station, Madras-1. After verifying the First Information Report already registered in connection with Medico Legal Case the appellant returned to the mortuary along with Sub Inspector of Police from the police station. To the surprise of the appellant, the body of his father was missing and in that place, the dead body of one Chidambaram Chettiar bearing token No.104 was kept. The body of Chidambaram Chettiar was also subjected to post-mortem. After verifying with the staff of the hospital, the appellant tried to take immediate step to stop the van carrying the body of the father of the appellant to Ambattur. The hospital authorities also took a private van to carry the body of late Chidambaram Chettiar to handover to the relatives of the deceased and to bring back the body of the father of the appellant. While they reached Ambattur, the body of the father of the appellant was already cremated by the family members of late Chidambaram Chettiar. The hospital authorities also took a private van to carry the body of late Chidambaram Chettiar to handover to the relatives of the deceased and to bring back the body of the father of the appellant. While they reached Ambattur, the body of the father of the appellant was already cremated by the family members of late Chidambaram Chettiar. The appellant was put to mental agony and torture. For that, a sum of 5,00,000 was claimed by the appellant for the gross negligence on the part of the respondents by filing this writ of mandamus. 3. The respondents 2 to 7 resisted the claim made by the appellant on the following grounds: The 9th respondent Muthukumar has given a letter stating that he has taken the wrong body since the identity of two bodies were similar. In fact the 9th respondent, who is none other than the son of Chidambaram Chettiar, had identified the body of late Krishnaswamy Naidu as that of his father’s body and received the same from the mortuary, eventhough he had identified correctly the body of his father, Chidambaram Chettiar when the post-mortem was conducted on 25.9.1991. It is because of the mistaken identification of the body of the late Krishnaswamy Naidu, as the body of his father, by the 9th respondent, the Mortuary Attendant released the body. It is purely an accidental mistake and fault on the part of the 9th respondent and not that of the attendant of mortuary. In fact, the 9th respondent has signed the Mortuary Register against his father’s name late Chidambaram Chettiar, but wrongly identified the body of late Krishnaswamy Naidu as his father’s body. The authorities of the hospital immediately taken every effort to recover the body of the father of the appellant by proceeding to Ambattur in a private van along with the body of late Chidambaram Chettiar, but the cremation was over by then. Therefore, the respondents 2 to 7 contend that there is no gross negligence on their part and therefore, not liable to pay any compensation much less Rs.5,00,000 to the appellant. 4. The 8th respondent resisted the claim made by the appellant on the following grounds: The deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu had paralytic attack while he was going in Govindappa Naicken Street on 23.9.1991 and he was taken and admitted in Government General Hospital by one Chinnadorai, after giving first aid. 4. The 8th respondent resisted the claim made by the appellant on the following grounds: The deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu had paralytic attack while he was going in Govindappa Naicken Street on 23.9.1991 and he was taken and admitted in Government General Hospital by one Chinnadorai, after giving first aid. The belongings of the deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu were remitted or handover to the authorities in Government General Hospital, Madras. Krishnaswamy Naidu died on 24.9.1991 at 13 hours without recovering from his unconsciousness. On information, the said Chinnadorai was examined by the Head Constable of C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station (Law and Order) and F.I.R. in Crime No.1896 of 1991 of the said police station was registered under Sec.174, Crl.P.C. at 16.00 hours on 24.9.1991. The identify of the body could not be established till 25.9.1991. The appellant, who had identified the body of his father, deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu, after enquiry in the Government General Hospital, Madras, approached C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station on 26.9.1991 and requested to make necessary arrangement to handover the body of his father to him. This respondent extended all help to take the body from the mortuary after undergoing all formalities. While the 8th respondent along with the appellant reached the Government General Hospital, it was known that the body of the deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu was taken by the 9th respondent to Ambattur on mistaken identification as it it is the body of his deceased father Chidambaram Chettiar in the mortuary after post-mortem. The body of the deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu was taken by the 9th respondent from the mortuary at about 8.15 a.m. and the same was known to the 8th respondent at 10.20 a.m. The 8th respondent had sent an information immediately to Ambattur Police Station to check the matter to ensure that the body of the deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu was safely returned to the appellant, but they came to know that the relatives of Chidambaram Chettiar had taken the body of Krishnaswamy Naidu as that of the body of Chidambaram Chettiar, the father of the 9th respondent and cremated the same in Ambattur burial ground. Therefore, the 8th respondent contends that there was no laches on the part of the 8th respondent in taking action to recover the body of late Krishnaswamy Naidu, wrongly taken by the 9th respondent. 5. Therefore, the 8th respondent contends that there was no laches on the part of the 8th respondent in taking action to recover the body of late Krishnaswamy Naidu, wrongly taken by the 9th respondent. 5. After considering the submission made on both sides, the learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that the unfortunate mishap had taken place due to wrong identification made by the 9th respondent and therefore, no action can be taken against the respondents 1 to 8 as there was no negligence on the part of respondents 1 to 8 and they were not in any way responsible for wrong identification of the body of Krishnaswamy Naidu by the 9th respondent without any ill-will or motive. Therefore the learned single Judge was of view that no compensation much less Rs.5,00,000 can be awarded to the appellant as claimed in the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved at the said order of the learned single Judge dated 31.1.1997 in W.P. No.15385 of 1991, the writ petitioner, as appellant, has come forward with this writ appeal. 6. Admittedly the father of the appellant, who left the house of the appellant on 23.9.1991 for purchase of pesticides and other agricultural requirements, to the office of Villivakkam Panchayat Union and Cholavaram Panchayat Union, had gone to Govindappa Naicken Street in Madras on 23.9.1991 and fell down and sustained head injury due to paralytic attack he had suddenly at that place. It is also not in dispute that the deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu, the father of the appellant was admitted in Government General Hospital, Madras by one Chinnadorai on 23.9.1991 and he died at 13.00 hours on 24.9.1991. The admission of the deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu was treated by the hospital authorities as an accident case and on information, the Head Constable of Flower Bazaar Police Station (Law and Order), Madras-1, went to the Government General Hospital, Madras and recorded the statement of Chinnadorai. Thereafter, First information Report in C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station Crime No.1896 of 1991 under Sec.174, Crl.P.C. was registered and the case was taken up for investigation. 7. Thereafter, First information Report in C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station Crime No.1896 of 1991 under Sec.174, Crl.P.C. was registered and the case was taken up for investigation. 7. Admittedly the appellant, who was in search of his father, went to Government General Hospital, Madras and found out on 26.9.1991 that the body of his father Krishnaswamy Naidu has been kept in the mortuary of the abovesaid hospital and therefore, he approached the 8th respondent to extend help for taking delivery of the body on 26.9.1991 itself. It is also evident that the 8th respondent has extended all help and in fact accompanied the appellant to the Government General Hospital for helping the appellant to take delivery of the body of his father after observing all formalities. The fact remains that the body of late Krishnaswamy Naidu was not available in the mortuary while they reached the hospital at 10.20 hours on 26.9.1991 and they found that the 9th respondent, who had signed the register in the mortuary against the name of his deceased father, Chidambaram Chettiar whose post-mortem was already done and kept ready for handing over the body to 9th respondent, had taken delivery of the body of the deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu wrongly identifying the same as the body of his father instead of the body of Chidambaram Chettiar at 8.15 a.m. on 26.9.1991. 8. Admittedly, 8th respondent immediately sent a message to Ambattur police station to check up this matter and to stop burning the body of late Krishnaswamy Naidu and the respondents 2 to 7 had arranged a private van and had also taken the body of late Chidambaram Chettiar to the residence of 9th respondent at Ambattur to handover the said body and to get back the body of Krishnaswamy Naidu for being handedover to the appellant herein. It is not in dispute that while they reached Ambattur, the 9th respondent along with his relatives numbering not less than 500 identifying the said body as that of Chidambaram Chettiar, performed all ceremonies, took the body of the cremation ground and burnt the body of late Krishnaswamy Naidu as that of the body of the deceased Chidambaram Chettiar, the father of the 9th respondent. The abovesaid facts would go to show that there should have been similarity between the bodies of deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu and the deceased Chidambaram Chettiar and the difference could not be found out not only by the 9th respondent, son of Chidambaram Chettiar, but also relatives and friends of Chidambaram Chettiar who had assembled there at the time of doing funeral rites and cremation. If that be the position even for the close relatives of the deceased Chidambaram Chettiar, it is highly impossible for the attendant in the mortuary to identify the body of Krishnaswamy Naidu or Chidambaram Chettiar while the 9th respondent himself asserted and had taken delivery of the body of the deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu as that of his father, viz., the deceased Chidambaram Chettiar on 26.9.1991. It is relevant to point out that the 9th respondent Muthukumar had signed the register of mortuary against the name of Chidambaram Chettiar, but identified the body of Krishnaswamy Naidu as that of his father and had taken delivery of the said body for being cremated in accordance with Hindu rites in the presence of his relatives and friends numbering about 500 as already pointed out. The fact has also been admitted by the 9th respondent and had given a letter to the authorities concerned. But anyhow it is evident from the statement given by the Vettiyan of Ambattur burial ground that the appellant herein had collected the ashes of his father Krishnaswamy Naidu from the crematorium on 27.9.1991 for the purpose of doing the last rites as per Hindu customs. If the said facts are taken into consideration, it cannot be said that there was any negligence much less gross negligence in handing over the body of the deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu to the 9th respondent who had signed and identified the body of the deceased Krishnaswamy Naidu as that of his father deceased Chidambaram Chettiar whose body was also kept in the mortuary on that date. Of course it is an unfortunate incident, but it had taken place without any deliberate negligence or motive on the part of anybody involved in this incident. In view of the said circumstances, the respondents cannot be held responsible for payment of compensation for the alleged mental agony of the appellant. Of course it is an unfortunate incident, but it had taken place without any deliberate negligence or motive on the part of anybody involved in this incident. In view of the said circumstances, the respondents cannot be held responsible for payment of compensation for the alleged mental agony of the appellant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was right in negativing the claim made by the appellant by dismissing the writ petition filed by him. There is no warranting circumstances to interfere with the said conclusion of the learned single Judge. 9. In fine, the order passed by the learned single Judge is confirmed and the writ appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the main writ appeal, the petition in C.M.P. No.7093 of 1997 is closed.