Civic body tries to blame victim, HC unimpressed

CHENNAI: Forced abstinence from sex is a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the constitution, the Madras high court has said while raising 12 times the compensation awarded to a man who became a paraplegic after an electric post being repaired by the city corporation fell on him as he was walking on the road. N Ananda Kumar was 26 years old at the time of the accident in 2008 that damaged his spinal cord.The civic body had appealed against the Rs 5 lakh compensation awarded by a single judge of the HC and wanted the case to be referred to a civil court. A division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice P Velmurugan, however, rejected it saying the civic body’s negligence had made the man ineligible to marry and rendered him wheelchair-bound. The bench held that the victim had suffered 100% disability and was compelled to remain a bachelor against his wish, as no woman would marry a person with paraplegia, depriving him of marital pleasure and bliss.Terming this forced abstinence a violation of human rights, the court cited medical literature and pointed out that it has negative consequences for a man’s health.The court suo motu enhanced the compensation to be paid to Rs 63.26 lakh and stated that the existence of the court was to do justice and not to direct parties to approach forums, turning down the plea to refer the case to a civil court.In the appeal, counsel for the city corporation argued that the contract to repair the electric post was outsourced and there was no negligence on the part of the civic body and that Ananda Kumar was carelessly walking on the road, speaking on his cell phone. “Had he avoided speaking on the cell phone and had he noticed the work being carried out, the accident could have been avoided,” counsel stated.On directions from the court, the victim appeared before the bench. Expressing shock at the condition of the victim due to the spinal cord accident and his post-surgery condition, the court noted that the victim was still spending on physiotherapy and required assistance to carry out his day-to-day activities.The court also perused the single judge verdict, which noted that the accident happened only because of improper welding, which was carried out by the corporation and not by the electricity board. “It was not only the contention of the victim, but also that of the electricity board that there was negligence on part of the corporation and improper welding caused the accident,” the division bench noted.