R. Karuppaiah And Another v. Lieutenant Governor And Others

Rajasekhar Mantha, J.:— The short question raised for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether compensation paid to the petitioners for the loss of life of their family members as a consequence of a fall of a banyan tree on their house, ought to be increased or not.

2. Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the law applied, for compensation to victims of Motor Accident Claims inter alia in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 could also be applied to the writ petitioners. Enhancement of compensation is claimed on such basis.

3. The facts of the case are that sometime in the year 2019 the writ petitioners had complained to the local revenue authorities that a banyan tree outside of their house was in a precarious condition and is likely to cause serious damage to their life and limb and residential property. The Sub-Divisional Officer launched proceedings under section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure and a report was submitted to the effect that the petitioners' grievances were genuine.

4. No steps were taken thereafter by the authorities.

5. It is submitted that during a cyclone occurred on 11 August, 2021 the said banyan tree collapsed on the petitioners' residence killing two family members.

6. It is submitted that the respondents paid meager compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- each. This compensation is stated to be inadequate and enhancement is sought.

7. Keeping the maintainability issue of the writ petition open, let affidavit in opposition be filed by the respondents within a period of three weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

8. Liberty to mention for hearing after completion of pleadings.