Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1229 (MAD)

Pakkirisamy v. District Collector, Karaikal

2023-03-20

M.DHANDAPANI

body2023
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the release the compensation amount of Rs.6,29,100/- and further, direct the respondents to give enhanced compensation amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioner and his family.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to release the compensation amount of Rs.6,29,100/- and further, direct the respondents to give enhanced compensation amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioner and his family. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner''s son, Ananthraj, aged about 14 years and was studying VII standard in the year 2009, died in the fire accident on 18.11.2009, occurred due to the improper maintenance of the pipelines laid by the Oil and Natural Gas Company (ONGC). However, the second respondent/ONGC without the informing the details to the petitioner, deposited a sum of Rs.6,29,100/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred only) with the third respondent/LIC and the petitioner is receiving a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as a premium amount. The petitioner is aged about 62 years and his wife is aged about 57 years respectively at the time of filing this writ petition. Hence, they are not able to run their family with the meagre amount of Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petitioner to direct the official respondents to pay the entire deposited amount of Rs.6,29,100/- to the petitioner forthwith. 3. Mr.M.Muruganantham, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, a direction may be issued to the official respondents to pay the amount deposited by the second respondent/ONGC with the third respondent/LIC, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court. 4. Mr.R.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has filed an affidavit dated 17.03.2023 before this Court, the relevant portion of which reads as follows : “4. I submit that this Hon''ble Court on 10.03.2023, considering the request and submissions of the Writ Petitioner, directed this respondent to file an affidavit of no objection, for the 3rd respondent, M/s.Life Insurance Corporation, to release the deposited principal amount of Rs.6,29,100/- in favor of the Writ Petitioner. 5. I submit that this Hon''ble Court on 10.03.2023, considering the request and submissions of the Writ Petitioner, directed this respondent to file an affidavit of no objection, for the 3rd respondent, M/s.Life Insurance Corporation, to release the deposited principal amount of Rs.6,29,100/- in favor of the Writ Petitioner. 5. I humbly submit that pursuant to the above direction, this respondent, expresses its consent and has no objection for the 3rd respondent, to release and pay the entire deposited principal amount of Rs.6,29,100/- to and in favour of the Writ Petitioner, in accordance with law.” 5. A reading of the above, it is made clear that the second respondent has no objection to release and pay the entire deposited amount of Rs.6,29,100/- to the petitioner. 6. Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/LIC would submit that, it is purely a contract entered into between the second respondent and the petitioner. Beyond the contract, this Court cannot issue a direction, even if the consent is given by the second respondent. 7. The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner''s son died due to the fire accident occurred in the pipelines of ONGC, for which, the second respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.6,29,100/- with the third respondent/LIC. Out of which, the third respondent is paying a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as premium to the petitioner. However, the petitioner accepted his inability to maintain the day-to-day life with the meagre amount of Rs.4,000/-. Since the second respondent had filed an affidavit stating that they have no objection for releasing the entire deposited amount in favour of the petitioner, the third respondent has no justification to keep the entire amount in the name of contract. 8. In view of the above, the third respondent is directed to release and pay the entire deposited amount of Rs.6,29,100/- to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.