Madras High Court
The Chairman vs Mrs.Chinnammal .. 1St on 22 January, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2012
1.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Anna Salai, Chennai
2.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Sivagangai, Sivagangai District
3.The Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Manamadurai, Sivagangai .. Appellants/Respondents 2 to 4
Vs.
1.Mrs.Chinnammal .. 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Secretary
Ministry of Electricity
Secretariat,
Chennai. .. 2nd respondent/1st respondent
***
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
against the order dated 30.3.2012 passed in W.P.(MD) No.5448 of
2011.
***
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy
For R1 : Mr.R.Ramasamy
For R2 : No Appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1/10
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012
ORDER
Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order of the writ Court
dated 30.3.2012 made in W.P.(MD) No.5448 of 2011, by which, the
writ court directed the appellants herein/Electricity Board to pay a
compensation Rs.3,62,000/- along with cost to the first respondent for
the death of her son.
2. The case of the first respondent/writ petitioner is that she is
the mother of one Kasinathan. She has two other children apart from
Kasinathan. On 23.06.2010, around 11.00 a.m, the said Kasinathan,
while he was spreading his wet clothes on the pole which is situated
on the left side of his house, he was electrocuted suddenly. He was
taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and ultimately, he died
on the same day.
3. According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, the incident
was solely happened due to the negligence on the part of the officials
of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the officials failed to maintain
the supply line in good condition and hence, the first respondent/writ
petitioner wanted the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, to pay
compensation for the death of her son. Therefore, she has filed
W.P.(MD) No.5448 of 2011, for a direction to the appellants herein to
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2/10
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012
pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation towards the death of
her son.
4. The claim was contested by the appellants
herein/respondents by filing a counter stating that the incident had
occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the son of the writ
petitioner and that the Board is responsible up to the main wire and it
is the responsibility of the private individual to take the wire from the
pole to the house. The private individual ought to have maintained the
service wire properly by engaging private electrician. The negligence
on the part of the deceased alone contributed for the incident in
question and therefore, the Board is not liable to pay compensation.
5. Upon hearing the parties and after perusing the records
available before it, the writ court, considering the provisions of the
Electricity Act, 2003, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
at paragraph Nos.15 and 17, 21 to 23 held as under:
" 15. Section 43(2) very clearly provides that it is
the duty of the distribution licensee to provide electricity
by taking the electric line. In the face of such an express
provision, the Electricity Board cannot be heard to say
that it is for the owner or occupier of the premises to
maintain the electric line. Therefore, I am not inclined to
accept the defence taken by the Electricity Board in the
subject case.
17. The concept of strict liability in the context of
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3/10
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012
snap electrocution came up for consideration before the
Supreme Court in M.P.Electricity Board v. Shail
Kumari [2002(2) SCC 162], the Supreme Court
interpreted the rule of strict liability and directed the
Electricity Board to pay compensation to the dependents
of the deceased, after arriving at a finding that the live
wire got snapped and fell on the public road which was
partially inundated and the deceased rode over the wire,
which twitched and snatched him resulting in his
instaneous electrocution. The Supreme Court indicated the
theory of foreseeable risk in the following words:
7. It is an admitted fact that the
responsibility to supply electric energy in the
particular locality was statutorily conferred on
the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes
injury or death of a human being, who gets
unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability
to compensate the sufferer is that of the
supplier of the electric energy. So long as the
voltage of electricity transmitted through the
wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the
managers of its supply have the added duty to
take all safety measures to prevent escape of
such energy or to see that the wire snapped
would not remain live on the road as users of
such road would be under peril. It is no defence
on the part of the management of the Board
that somebody committed mischief by
siphoning such energy to his private property
and that the electrocution was from such
diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers
of the supply system to prevent such pilferage
by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if
any live wire got snapped and fell on the public
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4/10
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012
road the electric current thereon should
automatically have been disrupted. Authorities
manning such dangerous commodities have
extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent
such mishaps.
8. Even assuming that all such measures have
been adopted, a person undertaking an activity
involving hazardous or risky exposure to human
life, is liable under law of torts to compensate
for the injury suffered by any other person,
irrespective of any negligence or carelessness
on the part of the managers of such
undertakings. The basis of such liability is the
foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of
such activity. The liability cast on such person is
known, in law, as “strict liability”. It differs from
the liability which arises on account of the
negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept
of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable
harm could be avoided by taking reasonable
precautions. If the 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."
21. The deceased was aged about 27 years as on
the date on which he was electrocuted. He was an
agriculturist. He was also working as a Mason. The income
of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month.
The annual income would be a sum of Rs.54,000/-. The
annual income so arrived shall be reduced by one third in
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5/10
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012
consideration of the expenses, which the victim would
have incurred towards himself had he been alive.
Therefore, the available surplus income would come to Rs.
36,000/-. In case the multiplier is taken as '15', the total
compensation which would come to a sum of Rs.
5,40,000/-.
22. Since the deceased was also at fault on account
of his negligent act in placing wet clothes on a service line,
necessarily, a percentage should be deducted on account
of his contributory negligence. I am of the view that one
third of the amount should be deducted towards the
contribution of the deceased to the incident. Accordingly,
the total compensation is arrived at Rs.3,60,000/-. The
petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the
funeral expenses.
23. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is directed to
pay a sum of Rs.3,62,000/- [Rupees three lakhs and sixty
two thousand only] to the petitioner with interest at 6%
from 28 April, 2011. The petitioner is also entitled to cost
estimated at Rs.5,000/-. The payment shall be made,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
production of a copy of this order."
6. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ appeal has been filed.
7. Heard Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned standing counsel for the
Electricity Board and Mr.R.Ramasamy, learned counsel for the first
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 6/10
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012
8. Though it was argued by the learned counsel for the
appellants that payment of compensation cannot be awarded under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in appropriate cases, where
there are no factual disputes, compensation can be awarded under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The materials available on
record clearly indicates that the deceased died on account of
electrocution and therefore, necessarily, the Board should compensate
the dependents of the deceased.
9. It is not in dispute that the deceased was 27 years old on the
date of accident and he was working as a Mason, besides an
agriculturist and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month.
10. The writ court, by following the decision in
Sri Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurane Company reported in AIR 2011 SC 2951, has fixed
notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, applied
multiplier '15' and determined the compensation at Rs.5,40,000/-.
The learned Single Judge has also further held that, since the
deceased was also at fault on account of his negligent act in spreading
wet clothes on a wire line, deducted one third amount and determined
the compensation at Rs.3,60,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-
towards funeral expenses and directed the Electricity Board to pay a
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 7/10
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012
sum of Rs.3,62,000/- as compensation to the first respondent/writ
petitioner, towards the death of her son along with interest and cost.
11. The learned single Judge, after elaborately considering the
relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the decision of the
Hon'be Supreme Court, has awarded the compensation. Hence, we do
not find any error or illegality in the order of the writ court, warranting
interference by this court.
12. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed confirming the
order of the writ Court dated 30.03.2012 made in
W.P.(MD)No.5448 of 2011. The appellants herein/Electricity Board is
directed to disburse the amount, if not already disbursed, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [S.K., J.]
22.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
asr/pm
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 8/10
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012
Note:
In view of COVID-19
Pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilised for
offical purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that
is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 9/10
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
asr/pm
W.A.(MD) No.519 of 2012 and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2012
Date : 22.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 10/10
