Madras High Court

Nagamani vs The Superintending Engineer on 20 December, 2021

                                                                              W.P.No.29651 of 2017
                                                                        and W.M.P.No.31950 of 2017

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED 20.12.2021

                                                      CORAM

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                              W.P.No.29651 of 2017
                                           and W.M.P.No.31950 of 2017

                     Nagamani                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                       Vs.
                     1.The Superintending Engineer
                       TANGEDCO
                       Olimohamedpet,
                       Kanchipuram,
                       Kanchipuram District.

                     2.The Divisional Engineer,
                       TANGEDCO,
                       Arakonam Road,
                       Tiruttani – 631 209.

                     3.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
                       TANGEDCO,
                       MA.PO.C.Salai,
                       Tiruttani – 631 209.

                     4.The Junior Engineer (O & M),
                       TANGEDCO,
                       Athimancheri Pettai,
                       Pallipet Taluk,
                       Tiruvallur District.                                   ... Respondents




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/11
                                                                                      W.P.No.29651 of 2017
                                                                                and W.M.P.No.31950 of 2017

                     PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents jointly
                     and severally to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- or such other
                     amount as this Court may deem fit.



                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Udayakumar

                                        For Respondents : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh
                                                             Standing Counsel

                                                           ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to

direct the respondents jointly and severally to pay compensation of

Rs.25,00,000/-.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her son Jaishankar, aged about

20 years was died due to electrocution on 23.11.2016. He was employed

in Pavithra Pushbam Enterprises of Eureka Forbes and his monthly

salary was Rs.15,000/-. He was ready to leave Sabarimala on 24.11.2016

to participate in pooja and when he went to take bath in the morning

hours @ 6.00 AM, on the way, an electric wire fell down and while

crossing the said wire, without noticing the same, he came into contact

with the said wire which was shocked due to passing of electricity and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.29651 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.31950 of 2017

died on the spot. Immediately a complaint was lodged before the

concerned police and an FIR was registered on the same date under

Section 174 Cr.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to the

negligence on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has lost the

bread-winner of the family and till date no compensation was granted in

spite of the representation dated 16.02.2017. Aggrieved over the same,

the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

submitted that the accident was occurred due to technical problem and as

such it was an act of God. Therefore, they claimed that the incident was

occurred due to no fault on the part of the respondents. Even in the

counter, they have offered ex-gratia payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to the

petitioner. However, the petitioner refused to accept the same and filed

the writ petition, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner died due to electrocution

and the respondents also accepted the fact that electrocution was due to

the technical problems. No one would expect that the electricity wire

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.29651 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.31950 of 2017

would go off from main line and fall on the sugarcane and thereby the

fatal incident will occur. No doubt, it is the duty of the respondent to

maintain the electric wires in tact that too when the wire is crossing on

the sugarcane field and to see that no untoward incident takes place. If

the respondent have conducted periodical inspection as regards the

strength of the wire from time to time, so that these type of incidents

could have been averted.

5.From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it has

become clear that the over head electric line got snapped and fallen on the

land owned by the first petitioner. No sensible person knowingly will

touch a snapped wire and invite a tragic consequences. As rightly

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's son

unknowingly had come into contact with the live wire and this Court can

safely infer that this was due to improper maintenance, the electric wire

had snapped and fell on the land. The respondents cannot be allowed to

take refuge under the plea of 'Act of God' and denying the petitioners' due

compensation. In fact, the respondents themselves had recognized such

accidents and offered Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for any fatal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.29651 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.31950 of 2017

accidents, regardless of the fact whether the victim was at fault or not.

Such being the case, the payment of compensation cannot be resisted or

contested by the respondents.

6. However, while computing the compensation, this Court has to

see what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances of the case. As

regards the issue of payment of compensation to such victims, this Court

time and again has entertained several writ petitions and ordered payment

of compensation ranging from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/-,

depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

7. At the out set, in the present case, offering exgratia of

Rs.2,00,000/- by the respondents, in the opinion of this Court, is not just

and fair. The petitioner's son was aged about 20 at the time of incident

and was working and earning Rs.15,000/- as salary. Therefore, in the

matter of awarding just compensation, it would be appropriate to apply

the method as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of “National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and

others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma and others vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.29651 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.31950 of 2017

8. This Court, even recently on 06.12.2017, has passed orders

under similar circumstances, granting little over Rs.6,00,000/- with 9%

interest from the date of writ petition till the date of payment. The

following cases which are referred to in the order passed by this Court in

W.P.No.24079 of 2008 dated 06.12.2017, would be of great significance

for providing just and reasonable compensation.

9. In the case of “Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another”, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme

Court Cases 121. The relevant portion of the judgment at Paragraph

Nos.16, 17 and 18, are extracted below:-

"16. Compensation awarded does not become "just compensation" merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. For example, if on the same or similar facts(say the deceased aged 40 years having annual income of Rs.45,000/- leaving his surviving wife and child), one Tribunal awards Rs.10,00,000/-

another awards Rs.5,00,000/- and yet another awards Rs.1,00,000/- all believing that the amount is just, it cannot be said that what is awarded in the first case and the last case is just compensation. "just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.29651 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.31950 of 2017

wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.

17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetica considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication and fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process and the decisions while it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity and not divergence and freakiness, should by the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation, In susamma Thomas, this Court stated : (SCC p.185, para 16) "16....The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability, for the assessment of compensation."

18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:

(a) age of the deceased;

(b) income of the deceased; and

(c) the number of dependants.

The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:

(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;

(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and

(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.29651 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.31950 of 2017

the age of the deceased.”

10. If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity

and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed

evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle

accident claims without delay."

11. The judgment also referred to for applying multiplier in regard

to different age groups as found in paragraph 42, which is extracted

below:-

"42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M- 15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

12. The Accident was occurred in the year 2016. The deceased was

a graduate. Therefore, even if the income is proved and for a 21 year old

person it would be appropriate to fix the notional income of the deceased

at Rs.15,000/- p.m. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.29651 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.31950 of 2017

the case of Sarla Varma (supra), as the age of the deceased was 21 years

on the date of the incident, multiplier of 18 would be applicable and after

deducting 50% towards personal expenses and adding 40% towards

future prospects, the total loss of dependency would come to

Rs.22,68,000/- (15,000x12x18x1/2x50% = 22,68,000/-). Apart from this,

the plaintiff is also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards parental