Karnataka High Court turns compensation for tragedy into long-term security for bereaved mason’s family
In a unique directive to prevent a mason from exhausting lump-sum compensation on necessities and to protect his family’s future, the High Court of Karnataka
In a unique directive to prevent a mason from exhausting lump-sum compensation on necessities and to protect his family’s future, the High Court of Karnataka has directed that a ₹5 lakh compensation, payable to him for an amicable settlement of a criminal case related to the death of his two-and-a-half-year-old child, be invested in a Post Office scheme till his daughter attains the age of majority. “The father of the deceased is a mason, earning his livelihood through daily wages, and is burdened with the responsibility of nurturing two other young children, a son and a daughter. Experience teaches courts that a substantial lump sum, placed in the hands of an impoverished family struggling for daily survival, may be consumed by immediate necessities, leaving little for the long-term welfare of the surviving children.
Compassion, therefore, demanded not merely disbursement but preservation,” the court observed. Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while quashing the criminal case registered against Velu alias Velmayil Somu, Abhishek Surana, and Alok S. Sundar for allegedly causing the death of the child by negligence. The tragedy occurred in May this year when a toddler, residing in an adjoining property, wandered into the petitioners’ premises where construction was under way and accidentally fell into a water tank and drowned. The child’s father, Sonu Machwar, a daily-wage mason who also has two other young children, had lodged the complaint with the Rajarajeshwari Nagar police. The petitioners claimed that criminal negligence cannot be attributed to them as the child’s father was neither employed by them nor was the child’s custody entrusted to their care or supervision.
During the hearing, the petitioners and the child’s father agreed to close the case, with the petitioner offering to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation to the child’s father. However, the court did not accept it, stating that the compensation offered is disproportionate to the gravity of the loss. Finally, the petitioners said that they would jointly pay ₹5 lakh as a lump sum amount apart from paying ₹10,000 per month for the next 12 months to the child's father, to whom the offer of a total of ₹6.2 lakh was acceptable. While approving the settlement, the court departed from conventional practice by directing that the ₹5 lakh lump sum be mandatorily invested in the Post Office monthly income scheme for five years, stating that the father has to use the interest for the welfare, education, and the upbringing of the surviving children.
The BriefWire