JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) or such other sum as found fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court which would meet the ends of Justice for the pain and suffering undergone by the petitioner and her family and the injuries caused to her husband.) 1. The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) for the pain and suffering undergone by the petitioner and her family and the injuries caused to her husband. 2. The petitioner states that her husband and along with the children were residing at No.644, 14th Block, Ground Floor, K.P.Thottam, Puliyanthope, Chennai. The flat was allotted in favour of the mother of the petitioner and subsequently to the petitioner. The petitioner's family were residing there for about 25 years and the flat was constructed by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in the year 1983. On 09.06.2014 about 7:45 p.m., when the husband of the petitioner was standing near outside the said flat, the balcony on the third floor fall down and the husband of the petitioner sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in Government General Hospital and advised by the Doctors to get treatment in Apollo Hospital. The petitioner made all the efforts to save the life of her husband, however, he died. 3. It is contended that because of the negligence committed by the authorities, the husband of the petitioner sustained serious injuries and the Slum Clearance Board building was not maintained properly. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. 4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that Block No.14 with 48 tenements were in dilapidated condition. The people residing in that block were advised to vacate the tenements to facilitate reconstruction of the building. Notices had been pasted all over scheme and in many places in Block No.48 with the request to the families to vacate their tenements early. Some of the people have cooperated and vacated their tenements. But the petitioner's family had not cooperated and neglected the advise given by the Board to vacate their dilapidated tenements. Notices had been pasted all over scheme and in many places in Block No.48 with the request to the families to vacate their tenements early. Some of the people have cooperated and vacated their tenements. But the petitioner's family had not cooperated and neglected the advise given by the Board to vacate their dilapidated tenements. On 09.06.2014, there was a heavy downpour of rain and the damaged balcony had crashed and fallen down. The debris had accidentally fallen on the petitioner's husband who was then injured. 5. The contention of the second respondent is that had they vacated their tenements based on the advice given by the Board officials, this mishap would not have occurred and basically this is the fault on the part of the petitioner's family. 6. The respondents have stated that after the accident also, the higher officials of the Board have inspected the site and instructed the residents to vacate their tenements to facilitate the reconstruction of the tenements and also to prevent the accidents which are resulted due to the damaged condition of the building. The Board officials had instructed several times to the petitioner orally and also through notices to vacate the house since the tenements of building was in the highly dilapidated condition. Had the petitioner vacated the tenements as per the advice, this mishap might not have happened. The mistake is on the part of the petitioner and the family for their non-cooperation in vacating the dilapidated tenements. 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the accident occurred due to heavy downpour of rain and the damaged balcony had crashed and fallen down. The tenements were already declared as unfit for dwelling purpose. When the competent authorities informed that the residential flats are unfit for dwelling purpose by issuing notice and making request to vacate the tenements, the petitioner and their family members at their own risk voluntarily continued in the said building which was in dilapidated condition. Thus, the petitioner and their family members voluntarily invited the incident for which the competent authorities cannot be blamed at all. 8. Thus, the petitioner and their family members voluntarily invited the incident for which the competent authorities cannot be blamed at all. 8. In view of the fact that it is a case where the petitioner and their family members have not followed the instructions given by the authorities so also the notice affixed, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents are not responsible for the accident and consequently they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.