Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 6/9/2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014
R. Poongavanam ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation of Energy and
Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO)
Annasalai
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer
Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Villupuram.
3. The Executive Engineer
Operation and Maintenance
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Kandamangalam
Villupuram Taluk.
4. The Assistant Engineer
Operation & Maintenance
Thiruchittrambalam Koot Road, Vanur Taluk
Villupuram. ... Respondents
Page No:1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4
to pay a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest for causing death of
the petitioner husband due to the negligence.
For Petitioner ... Ms.Anisree Sangavi
for
M/s.Usha Ramman
For respondents ... Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh
-----
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pay a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest for causing death of the petitioner's husband due to negligence.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-
Deceased Radhakrishnan, is the husband of the petitioner, doing cultivation, agricultural operation and supplying milk. He is the sole bread Page No:2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014 winner of the family and earned Rs.80,000/- p.a. On 21/9/2010, when the deceased went to the field to collect grass, he was electrocuted by electric high tension broken wire line lying in Rayapudupakkam Pettai Koil Manyam and he died on the spot. A case in Crime No.174 of 2010 has been registered. Under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Heard Ms.Anisree Sangavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that due to the poor maintenance of the electricity high tension wire by the respondents, caused the death of the deceased. Lawyer notice, dated 2/11/2010 issued by the petitioner, claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Even though the respondents received notice on 3/11/2010, the respondents have not taken any action. If the respondents Board had properly maintained the live wires, ill- fated accident would have been averted. Therefore, submitted that negligence cannot be disputed on the petitioner. Hence, prays for compensation. Page No:3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, produced the counter affidavit filed by the Junior Engineer, O & M, North, TANGEDCO, Thiruchitrambalam, wherein it is stated that as per Section 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the aggrieved person ought to have filed a suit claiming the compensation within one year from the date of the alleged commission. The deceased ought not to have touched the snapped wire. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to blame the Electricity Board.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that negligence is only on the part of the deceased and further, suit should have been filed. Since, there is a disputed question of fact, writ petition is not maintainable.
7. Perused the entire materials available on record.
8. It is not disputed that the death of the petitioner's husband is due to electrocution. A perusal of the First Information Report would show that electrocution has happened due to the snapped wire on the agricultural field. This Court on an earlier occasion, in Appeal Suit No. 758 of 2012 (1. Vestas Page No:4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014 RRB India Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, No.189, Sukhder Vihar, New Delhi 110 025 and another Vs. 1. K. Ramasamy and two others, has dealt with the similar issue, wherein this Court had extracted the relevant portion from the judgment reported in 2002 (1) CTC 362, M.P.ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SHAIL KUMARI, it has been held as follows:-
“17. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. This is based on the doctrine of strict liability. The concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the third defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm, he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions. .........where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity Page No:5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014 and harm is caused on any one on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330.
9. Under the principles of strict liability, the Electricity Department ought to have maintained the wire carefully and properly and allowing the wires get snapped frequently is the negligence on the part of the Electricity Department. Such things cannot be ignored altogether.
10. In R.KUMAR Vs. ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT {2017 (1) CTC 668}, the learned Single Judge has observed at para Nos.6 and 7 are as follows:-
“6. The first question that needs to be addressed is whether the snapping of OH-LT live wire due to Page No:6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014 heavy wire and rain, would amount to an “Act of God”. It is needless to mention that prior to installation of live-wire, careful precaution must be taken to ensure that the electric wires which are prone to come in contact with the public if snapped in times of heavy rain and wind, are installed with utmost durability and endeavour to withstand such unforeseen calamity. Rigorous periodical inspection needs to be conducted to such installation to avoid any untoward incident. Absence of the precaution would amount to negligence on the part of the respondents. It is common knowledge that rain tends to become heavy only after gradual and constant down-pour thereby turning into storm or gale wind, which are always predictable and hence precautions like cutting down the power supply to the openly installed live wires and transformer is essential during such untoward incidents.
Page No:7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014
7. In the case on hand, the live wire, to which the deceased Victor came into contact, had snapped either due poorly installed electric pole or lack of proper and periodical maintenance of the same. The respondents do not seem to have taken any precaution to cut down the power supply, when heavy rains and winds were anticipated. I do not find any of the reasonings put forth by the learned counsel for the second respondent in its counter affidavit as well as during his oral submissions to the effect that the accident was due to an “Act of God”. On the other hand, the unfortunate incident is attributable due to the negligence on the part of the concerned Officials of the second respondent.”
11. In ARULMERI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, TNEB (2013) 2 MLJ 302, this Court has rejected the objection of the electricity board with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and directed the respondents to compensate the petitioner. Page No:8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014
12. Considering the strict liability theory, it is the duty of the respondents to maintain the High Tension wire in a proper manner. Merely because the wire got snapped, it cannot be stated by the Department that the wire has been touched by the deceased negligently. In such a view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the respondents are liable to pay compensation.
13. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 70 years, at the time of his death, who was an agriculturalist and also selling milk and earned Rs.300/- per day. This Court will fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m (300 x 30). If ¼ is deducted towards the personal expenses, since the petitioner leaving behind his wife, three daughter and one son, and also fixing multiplier at 5 and as the number of dependents/ family members of the deceased is 5, at the time of death, after deducting 1/4th of his income, this Court awards a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- towards loss of dependency.
9,000 x ¼ = Rs.2,250, 9,000 – 2,250 = Rs.6,750/- x 12 = Rs.81,000/- x 5 = Rs.4,05,000/-.
Page No:9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014 Further this Court also hereby awards various compensation under the following heads:-
Loss of Estate ... Rs.15,000/-
Loss of consortium ... Rs.40,000/-
Funeral Expenses ... Rs.15,000/-
Transport expenses ... Rs. 5,000/-
---------------
Rs,4,80,000/-
---------------
14. In total, this Court hereby rounded off the above amount of Rs.4,80,000/-and awards a sum of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five lakhs only) as compensation. The respondents/Electricity Board are hereby directed to pay the said amount as compensation to the petitioner, with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of accident, till the date of payment, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. In fine, the writ petition is allowed, on the above terms. No costs.
6/9/2022 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order mvs.
Page No:10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014 To
1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Generation of Energy and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) Annasalai Chennai 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Villupuram.
3. The Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Kandamangalam Villupuram Taluk.
4. The Assistant Engineer Operation & Maintenance Thiruchittrambalam Koot Road, Vanur Taluk Villupuram.
Page No:11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014 N. SATHISH KUMAR, J mvs.
W.P.No.11432 of 2014 6/9/2022 Page No:12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis