Writ Court Cannot Award Tortious Compensation in Disputed Negligence Claims via Multiplier Method

During a temple festival on 29.04.2013, four villagers (including minors and a young mother) drowned in the Cauvery river while taking a holy bath.

The writ petitioners (respondents herein) alleged the deaths resulted from "quicksand" created by illegal sand quarrying and sought compensation from the State.

The State (appellants) contested liability, arguing the deaths were an "Act of God" or due to the victims' own negligence ("Volenti non fit injuria") as they ignored local warnings.

The Single Judge, relying on a previous Division Bench holding involving illegal mining, directed the State to pay compensation using the multiplier method.

The State appealed this common order.

1. Whether the State can be held liable for negligence under Article 226 when the cause of death and allegations of illegal quarrying are disputed facts.

2. Whether the "multiplier method" used in Motor Vehicles Act cases is applicable to drowning incidents where contributory negligence is alleged.

3. Whether the State is obligated to install caution boards across the entire 200km stretch of the river.

The Court primarily applied the principle of Volenti non fit injuria regarding self-assumed risks.

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das (1999) 7 SCC 298, which established that a Writ Court should not entertain claims for compensation under Article 226 when the underlying facts regarding negligence and liability are highly disputed.

The Court also distinguished the present case from the "Multiplier Method" application used in the previous Division Bench judgment in WP(MD)No.4251 of 2017, noting that the latter involved proven, rampant illegal mining with State connivance.

The Court found that unlike the previous precedent involving 40-foot deep man-made pits, the present case involved disputed facts regarding the formation of natural quicksand via sediment transport.

The Court noted the victims entered the river of their own volition for a religious event without notifying the authorities.

It observed that it is "virtually impossible" for the State to predict shifting quicksand or place caution boards across a 200km river stretch.

Therefore, the Single Judge erred in fixing liability without a trial. However, the Court took note of an affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer (8th respondent) expressing a "sympathetic and humanitarian approach" and a willingness to pay "reasonable compensation" as a Welfare State.

This admission, while not an admission of legal negligence, allowed the Court to grant relief on humanitarian grounds rather than as a strict legal liability.

On purely humanitarian grounds and based on the State's own offer of "reasonable compensation," the Court ordered ex-gratia payments of ₹10,00,000 for the loss of a wife and child, and ₹5,00,000 each to the other two petitioners.

The Court clarified that if the petitioners are dissatisfied with this quantum, they are at liberty to file a civil suit to prove negligence, with a direction that the Civil Court shall waive limitation periods due to the 12-year pendency of the writ proceedings.