Madras High Court
The Chairman vs Raja Basha on 28 June, 2021
W.A.No.2852 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.2852 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.18346 of 2019
1.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
800, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Assistant Engineer (O&M),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
H-Block, 11th Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Chennai - 40 .. Appellants
Vs
1.Raja Basha
2.The District Collector,
Singaravelar Maligai,
Chennai District. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 05.02.2019 made in W.P.No.36979 of 2007.
For Appellants : Mr.P.R.Dhilipkumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Namonarayanan for R1
Mr.S.John J Raja Singh
Government Counsel for R2
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2852 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants, aggrieved over
the order of the learned Single Judge, who disposed of the writ petition
filed by the first respondent seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-,
by granting a sum of Rs.15,97,000/- based upon the parameters
required for fixation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The first respondent's son is stated to have died by way of
electrocution. He was working as a daily wage worker. The accident
said to have taken place during a rainy day.
3. A legal notice was issued by the first respondent to the
appellants, inter alia, contending that the deceased stepped on a live
electric cable and died due to electrocution. Though there was no
reply, a further representation was given by the first respondent
reiterating the same. After the continued silence emanating from the
appellants, the writ petition was filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2852 of 2019
4. In the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge,
the appellants contended that the accident occurred in the premises of
the Company by name M/s.Kumar Packaging Company. The deceased
rushed to the premises in view of the rain on the fateful day. A tube
light was unauthorisedly installed by the said company and due to the
leakage of electricity, the accident occurred as the victim touched it by
mistake. The facts being disputed, the writ petition is not
maintainable. The accident occurred on 29.10.2006 whereas the
service connection was effected on 02.12.2006.
5. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by
taking into consideration the final report and the FIR. Reliance has also
been made on the post-mortem certificate which indicates that the
deceased died of electrocution.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants. The post-mortem, FIR and the final
report are mere pieces of evidence. It is the specific case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2852 of 2019
appellants that the accident took place in the premises of the Company
which got the service connection only thereafter. The FIR itself has
been given not by an eye witness.
8. Law is quite settled that when the disputed questions of fact
are involved and that too in an issue with regard to compensation, the
Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry. However, taking
note of the fact that the death has occurred due to electrocution, we
are inclined to modify the order of the learned Single Judge, who
passed the order, by taking note of the documents referred above, by
permitting the first respondent to withdraw a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs out
of Rs.10 lakhs deposited by the appellants in compliance with the
order of this Court, leaving all the issues to be decided by the
jurisdictional civil Court.
9.Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge stands
modified giving liberty to the first respondent to file a comprehensive
civil suit. The arrangement being interim in nature, parties are entitled
to have all the pleadings before the civil Court. The first respondent is
given further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment to file a comprehensive civil suit, in which case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2852 of 2019
same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation as we are
inclined to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The appellants are
permitted to withdraw the remaining amount lying in the deposit.
10. The writ appeal stands ordered accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
28.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
The District Collector,
Singaravelar Maligai,
Chennai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2852 of 2019
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.2852 of 2019
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
