AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P4 order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The petitioner is Kerala Water Authority. The 2nd respondent submitted a petition before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission mainly alleging that she had fallen into a pit near Zephyr Institute at the entrance of Uppillanmoodu bridge in Kaithamukku and suffered deep injuries with stitches in her head wounds all over her body and that she was not able to got for work for some time and she had narrowly escaped from death. The matter was enquired into by the 1st respondent Commission and finally Ext. P4 order has been passed.
As per Ext. P4 order, the Commission recommended for payment of Rs. 10,000/- as token compensation to the 2nd respondent within a period of two months from the date of the order. Further direction was that the Kerala Water Authority and the Public Works Department will see that the roads are maintained properly and while making the drainage line, the manhole should be maintained properly.
Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there is no power for the Commission to pass such an order directing payment of compensation. In the grounds stated in the writ petition, it is also stated that no proper enquiry was conducted by the Commission. As regards the power of the Commission, it is clear from Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act that the Commission has adequate power in the matter. Section 18 (a) of the Act reads as follows:
Steps during and after inquiry.- The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:-
(a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority-
(i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary;
(ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons;
(iii) to take such further action as it may think fit.
Section 18(a) and 18 (a)(i) will show that the Commission can recommend to the concerned authority to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or to the members of the family. Therefore, the contention that the Commission has no power to pass an order like the one herein cannot be accepted.
A reading of the order passed by the Commission will show that all the parties were duly heard. The Commission was of the view that the incident occurred in the manhole in existence in the underground drainage line at the centre of the carriage way of Pulimoodu-Uppidamodu road and there is leakage in the drainage line and pot holes were developed. The same is a finding of fact which normally cannot be a matter for interference by this Court. Finally, the Commission has recommended payment of Rs. 10,000/- as a token compensation by the Kerala Water Authority to the 2nd respondent. It cannot be said that the compensation awarded is too exorbitant.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed.