The Madras High Court Bench here on Tuesday held that the State government was liable to pay Rs.10.07 lakh to the family of a Sri Lankan fisherman W. Carnicius Fernando, who was shot dead by a Warder outside the Madurai Central Prison on October 5, 2007.

Allowing a public interest litigation petition filed by a lawyer on behalf of the wife of the deceased, a Division Bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice D. Hariparanthaman ordered to disburse the money through the Indian High Commission in Sri Lanka after deducting an ex-gratia of Rs.1 lakh already paid.

Mr. Fernando, then treasurer of a fishermen association, used to visit Tamil Nadu frequently to free Sri Lankan fishermen detained in various prisons here on charges of fishing in the Indian waters. On one such visit, a prison warder here shot him on his chest with a self loading rifle after suspecting his movements near the main gate.

An enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer indicted the warder and a few other prison officials for the incident. The government also accepted the findings on June 24, 2008, and ordered prosecution of the warder besides initiation of departmental proceedings against the officers concerned.

Writing the judgement, Mr. Justice Ramasubramanian said that there was no indication either in the counter affidavit filed by the government that the victim was at fault in any way.

There was also no averment that he carried any weapon or that he posed threat to the security or that any of his acts contributed to the incident.

“The above facts would show that an innocent foreign national who was on a visit to India with a valid visa was shot dead by a person on duty in uniform… Therefore, the death of such a person on the hands of another who wielded official authority needs to be compensated,” he added.

There was no codified law for arriving at the quantum of compensation in cases of this nature. Even the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, does not provide adequate indications. The only clue provided by this enactment was that the quantum of damage awarded by the courts should be proportionate to the loss resulting from the death, the Bench said.

Stating that the deceased owned several fishing vessels and also a prominent person in his country, the judges said: “We have no alternative except to presume that he would have been earning Rs.1 lakh per month.”

They also pointed out that the deceased aged 44 at the time of his death had left behind his wife, a 16-year-old daughter and 13-year-old son.

Share