K.Duraisamy v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.11.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.A.Nos.1073 & 1074 of 2016 K.Duraisamy ... Appellant in W.A.No.1073 of 2016 Mrs.A.Baby Appellant in W.A.No.1074 of 2016 Vs.
1.Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., rep.by its General Manager, ... 1st respondent in both the W.A.1073/2016 and Respondent in W.A.1074/2016 2.Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director, ... 2nd Respondent in W.A.No.1073 of 2016 Writ Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 31.03.2016 made in W.P.No.31318 of 2015 and W.P.No.34801 of 2013.
WP.No.31318 of 2015 Writ Petition was been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay a compensation for a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) as a compensation to the petitioner towards the damages caused against the super structure of the building at Old No.40 New No.83 Swami Naicken Street Chintadripet Chennai - 600 002 apart from pay a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) for causing Stress mental
agony suffering and permanent disturbances to this petitioner within a prescribed time limit.
WP.No.34801 of 2013 Writ Petition No.34801 of 2013 has been filed under Article 226 of the Consitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay a compensation for a sum of Rs.20 00 000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) as a compensation to the petitioner and joint owners towards the damages caused against the superstructure of the building at Old No.2 New No.3 Agraharam Street Chintadripet Chennai - 2. apart from that pay a sum of Rs.5 00 000/- (Rs. five lakhs) for causing stress mental agony and sufferings within a time limit For Appellants :Mr.S.Prabhu for Mr.A.Manohar For Respondents :Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by HULUVADI G.RAMESH,J) These writ appeals are directed against the order dated 31.03.2016, made in W.P.Nos.
31318 of 2015 and 34801 of 2013, wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants/writ petitioners seeking compensation against the respondents for the damages caused to the superstructure of their respective buildings and also for the stress, mental agony and permanent disturbances caused to them.
2. The learned single Judge, while dealing with the matter, based on the opinion expressed by the Technical Engineer, Geotechnical Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, and in furtherance of the interim order, has finally disposed of the writ petitions, holding that this Court cannot give a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the writ petitioners, as the matter involves disputed questions of fact.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully.
4. The apprehension of the appellants/writ petitioners is that the water level is depleted and also the building has developed several air-cracks etc.
5. It is seen from the records that the Expert's opinion is to the effect that the stability of the building is not in dangerous condition. Since the work is predominantly carried out by the Government for the public purpose, the apprehension expressed by the appellants/writ petitioners cannot be dealt with in the writ proceedings, to award any damages. Unless and until it is established, as a matter of fact finding, by way of enquiry or separate or appropriate proceedings, the prayer sought for by the appellants/writ petitions cannot be entertained. The appellants have straight away approached this Court seeking compensation of Rs.30 lakhs against the respondent authority and the learned single Judge, referring the opinion of the technical engineer, dismissed the writ petitions holding that no document has been produced to show the damages caused to the buildings and also opined that the same could be rectified. We do not find any error as such being committed by the learned single Judge in the orders under challenge. Therefore, the writ appeals are dismissed.
However, if the appellants/writ petitioners have got any apprehension or if any prima facie case is made out, they can very well approach the appropriate forum to express their grievance, in accordance with. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar msk To 1.The General Manager, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.,
2.Managing Director, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., +2cc to Mr.A. Manohar, Advocate, S.R.No.69294,69293 +2cc to Mr.Jayesh B. Dolia, Advocate, S.R.No.68751,68752 ss(CO) md(30/12/2016) W.A.Nos.1073 and 1074 of 2016