Madras High Court invokes no fault liability principle to grant ₹5 lakh compensation to kin of man who died after falling into pit on public road

The Madras High Court recently awarded a compensation of ₹5 lakh to the kin of a man who died after falling into a pit dug on a road for construction work that was being carried out by the government [N Annamalai v The Union of India ]..In a judgement passed on January 3, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court invoked the principle of "no fault liability" after noting that the deceased had been riding his two wheeler on a public road, and had fallen into a pit dug by a contractor engaged by the government. "In these circumstances, I can very well without going into the question of negligence award compensation based on no fault liability approach," the High Court said.Therefore, even without going into claims and counter claims of negligence on both sides, the High Court awarded compensation to the deceased's family based on the "no fault liability approach." The Court permitted the deceased's father, N Annamalai, the petitioner in the case, to withdraw as due compensation amounting to ₹5 lakh had been deposited at the admission stage of the case by the concerned contractor..In his plea, Annamalai had said that his son, Sarvanan, who used to work as a conductor in a private bus, died on August 27, 2021 after falling into a pit that had been dug by the contractor engaged by the district administration of Puddhokotai district for construction of a bridge under the Pradhan Mantri scheme. Annamalai argued that the State government was vicariously liable and obliged to pay compensation. The contractor, who was one of the respondents in the case, filed a counter-affidavit saying that the accident had occurred because the deceased had not adhered to the warning sign at the spot that suggested a diversion. .The High Court, however, said that this was a case where each party was likely to allege negligence on the other's part. However, it was not necessary for the Court to go into the merits of such allegations, it said. Justice Swaminathan went on to say that the statutory scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act envisages an approach of no fault liability, where the owner of a vehicle that has been in an accident and causes injuries or death of another party, is liable to pay compensation. He also said that the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation also follows a policy where it gives a compensation of ₹5 lakh to the family of those who die of electrocution, without going into the question of negligence. "Following the direction given by this Court, the contractor had also deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The petitioner can very well withdraw the same without prejudice to his right to claim higher compensation. Since disputed facts have been thrown up for consideration, exercising writ jurisdiction, I am not in a position to go into the same. The petitioner would allege that the contractor had not put up barricades. On the other hand, the contractor would claim that the road users had been specifically called upon to take diversion and that the occurrence took place because the petitioner's son did not pay heed to the same. Unless evidence is taken, I cannot decide whether the contractor had breached his obligations," the Court said. The Court also granted the petitioner the liberty to file a civil suit if he wishes to enhance the compensation amount..Advocate A Rahul appeared for the petitioner Annamalai. Advocate B Deepa appeared for the Union Government that was a respondent in the case. Additional Government Pleader M Sarangan appeared for the Tamil Nadu government's district authorities. Advocate P Thiyagarajan appeared for the contractor..[Read Judgment]