Karnataka High Court turns tragedy compensation into long-term security for bereaved mason’s family

View of Karnataka High Court Building | Photo credit: File Photo

In a unique directive to prevent a bricklayer from depleting his one-time compensation for necessities and protect his family’s future, the Karnataka High Court has ordered that the ₹5,000 compensation to be paid to him for the amicable settlement of a criminal case related to the death of his two-and-a-half-year-old child be invested in the postal system until his daughter comes of age.

“The father of the deceased is a bricklayer, earns a living by daily wages and is burdened with the responsibility of bringing up two other young children, a son and a daughter. Experience teaches the courts that a substantial lump sum, placed in the hands of an impoverished family struggling for the daily survival of the children, may be consumed by immediate needs, leaving in the long run only small claims for survival.” disbursement but retention,” the court observed.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while quashing the criminal proceedings against Vela alias Velmayil Somu, Abhishek Surana and Alok S. Sundar for allegedly causing the death of a child through negligence.

The tragedy occurred in May this year, when a toddler, who lives on an adjacent plot, wandered into the premises of the petitioners, where construction was underway, accidentally fell into the water tank and drowned. The child’s father, Sonu Machwar, a daily-wage mason who also has two other young children, lodged a complaint with the Rajarajeshwari Nagar police.

The petitioners argued that they could not be charged with criminal negligence because the child’s father was not employed by them, nor was the child entrusted to them for care or supervision.

During the hearing, the appellants and the child’s father agreed to settle the case, with the appellant offering ₹2,000 compensation to the child’s father. But the court did not accept it, saying that the compensation offered was disproportionate to the severity of the loss.

Finally, the petitioners said they would jointly pay ₹5,000 as a lump sum in addition to paying ₹10,000 per month for the next 12 months to the child’s father, for whom the offer totaling ₹6.2 lakh was acceptable.

In approving the settlement, the court deviated from conventional practice by ordering that a lump sum of ₹5,000 be compulsorily invested in a post office monthly income scheme for five years, stating that the father must use the interest for the welfare, education and upbringing of the surviving children. Once the daughter comes of age, the investment can be withdrawn in accordance with the law, the court said.

“Courts not only decide disputes; they sometimes become silent guardians of justice where law intersects with human suffering,” the court noted.

“A trial cannot restore a life that has been irretrievably lost, nor can any monetary compensation alleviate the anguish of parents. Yet where the parties seek closure and the law permits such a settlement, the court has a sacred duty to ensure that justice is not reduced to a mere business deal, but takes on the character of meaningful restitution,” the court continued.

Published – 15 Jul 2026 21:26 IST