RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

                        Govind Kumar

                        Vs.

                        State of Rajasthan

                        S.B.C.W.P. No. 11999 of 2008
                           (Prem Shanker Asopa, J.)

                        10.11.2008

                        ORDER

Prem Shanker Asopa, J.

1. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 2 has also been served
but no one appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. However, for respondent No. 1 Mr.
R.S. Rathore, Additional Government Counsel is present.

2. With the consent of the parties, the case was heard finally.

3. This writ petition is arising out of the interim order dated 13-8-2008 passed by the
Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur whereby the
application for interim compensation has been rejected on the ground that there is no
prima facie evidence on record that death of the 4 years' child caused on account of
drowning in the pond.

4. The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that the pond was not surrounded by
wall by the Municipality and the deceased was playing nearby the pond and further
being of the age of 4 years was not knowing the consequences. The State Government
in such cases should award ex-gratia amount but here in the instant case, no amount
was awarded and his application was wrongly rejected for want of prima facie
evidence.

5. I have gone through the contents of the writ petition. After Having considered the
submissions, in my view, there is a prescription wherein it has been mentioned that the
petitioners, who are parents of four years child Annu, brought him dead to the hospital
as a case of drowning, which clearly reveals that the prima facie case of death is
drowning. Therefore, there appears to be no justification for not granting
compensation by the Court.

6. It is the duty of the State and the Municipality to protect area of the pond in small
villages where the children used to play in the nearby area and if they fail to do so,
then ex-gratia amount is to be awarded by the State itself. But here is the case where
the State has contested the issue of interim compensation, which would be subject to
the final award/judgment.

7. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to observe that the present case is of
fatal accident where there is no provision of no fault liability like Motor Vehicles Act,
but still the State being a welfare State cannot escape from its liability to make the
interim compensation. Therefore, the State may consider the issue of framing the
guidelines for the grant of interim compensation as the case may be.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13-8-2008
passed by the Court below is set aside and the respondents are directed to pay an
amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty Thousand) as interim compensation to the petitioners
within a period of one month from today.

Petition allowed.