Madras High Court
P.Paranthaman vs The Superintending Engineer on 12 April, 2022
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
WP.No.17987 of 2019
P.Paranthaman ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Udumalai,
Kongalnagaram, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) for the death of the son of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.B.Muralikrishnan
For Mr.S.Varanesh
For Respondents : Mr.Abul Kalam
Standing Counsel
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
ORDER
The petitioner is a daily wager. One of his two children, Dhinesh, who has
studying in the 11th standard in the Government Higher Secondary School at
Charipalayam had accompanied his relatives on 04.03.2018 for a painting job
work. Unfortunately, there had been an accident at the venue and the petitioner's
son had been electrocuted fatally.
2. According to the petitioner, the accident was caused by his son and the
others who had been executing the work carrying an iron ladder that had come into
contact with a three-phase electric wire causing the electrocution. The petitioner
filed a complaint before the Komangalam Police Station and enquiry had been
conducted by the Police Officer.
3. A report, entitled Parvai Mahazar, dated 04.03.2018 i.e. the date of
incident, states that there were a total of 10 electrical lines at a height of 150 feet
and the three-phase line was found carrying 433 volts. The petitioner alleges that
there were several factors that had caused his son's death, such as the abnormally
high voltage, the excessive number of lines and the fact that the lines were at a
very low height, which is legally impermissible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
4. He relies upon Rule 91 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (‘Rules’) that
provides for safety and protective devices to be put in place such that an overhead
line that breaks will be rendered harmless. Had only such device been in place, the
electricity line would have merely broken upon coming into contact with the
ladder, without any adverse consequences, as have transpired.
5. Thus, and even assuming that there was some laxity on the part of the
deceased or the co-workers it does not absolve the authorities from their
responsibility. Rule 91 is extracted below:
‘91. Safety and protective devices.—
(1) Every overhead line, (not being suspended from a dead
bearer wire and not being covered with insulating material and
not being a trolley-wire) erected over any part of street or other
public place or in any factory or mine or on any consumers’
premises shall be protected with a device approved by the
Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it
breaks.
(2) An Inspector may by notice in writing require the owner
of any such overhead line wherever it may be erected to protect it
in the manner specified in sub-rule (1). 1[(3) The owner of every
high and extra-high voltage overhead line shall make adequate
arrangements to the satisfaction of the Inspector to prevent
unauthorised persons from ascending any of the supports of such
overhead lines which can be easily climbed upon without the help
of a ladder or special appliances. Rails, reinforced cement
concrete poles and pre-stressed cement concrete poles without
steps, tubular poles, wooden supports without steps, I-sections and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
channels shall be deemed as supports which cannot be easily
climbed upon for the purpose of this rule.]’
6. The petitioner relies upon decisions of this Court in S.Rukmani vs. Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board, WP.No.40171 of 2015 dated 20.01.2016, S.Manjula vs.
Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu (2012 2 CWC 552), The
Superintending Engineer vs. T.Ranganathan and others (2017 3 CTC 703),
Thangavel and another vs. Superintending Engineer and others (2017 2 MWN
(Civil) 400) in support of his submissions.
7. The child was only 14 years old and his demise is solely attributable to
the negligence of the respondents and their non-adherence in complying with the
Rules, and ensuring the safety of the service connection, he argues.
8.Learned Panel Counsel for the respondents would point out that the Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board was not arrayed as an accused in the criminal complaint in
which only the contractor, who had engaged the services of the labour, had been
arrayed. That apart, he would emphasize upon the fact that the incident was caused
solely by the negligence of the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
9. There is no dispute in that, the child had been carrying a tall iron ladder
which had come into contact with the electrical wire. However, as petitioner
contends, any unintended error on the part of the child would not absolve the
respondents from the strict liability cast upon them under the Rules to render safe
the equipment in use on city/village roads and areas.
10. In order to better understand the application of Rule 91 and methodology
of working of the protective devices, a request was made to Mr.Kalam that a
technical expert from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board be deputed to appear
before the Court and explain the application of the safety devises contemplated
under Rule 91.
11. I am anguished to state that there has been no semblance of an
explanation or iota of instruction in this regard. No officer was even present on the
date of hearing as initially directed, that is, 02.03.2022 and it was only when the
direction was reiterated on 09.03.2022 that an officer even deigned to appear. He
was however utterly incompetent in explaining to the Court any aspect of the
matter, let alone the application of Rule 91 and safety measures provided
thereunder.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
12. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parezade Mama vs. State
of Tamilnadu (WP.No.5217 of 1999) had considered a similar issue holding that
the family of the victims were entitled to compensation. At paragraphs 16 and 17
they state as follows:
‘16.A Division Bench of this Court (P.K.Misra &
S.Rajeswaran, JJ) in Parezade Mama v. State of Tamil Nadu rep.
by Secretary to Government, Elecricity Department, WP.No.5217
of 1999, while dealing with the case of death of the mother and
father of the children, who died when the children playing in a
lodge were to touch the running overhead high tension line
approximately 3 feet from the balcony of the lodge and the parents
while attempted to rescue the children, by relying upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Nath Bros. Exim International
Ltd. V. Best Roadways Ltd., 2000 (4) SCC 553, held that on the
fact of the conduct of the public authority, there is infringement of
Article 21, and there is no bar for the High Court to proceed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by granting necessary
damages, as follows:
17.It is true that Writ Petitions for claiming damages cannot
be restored when there is a clear denial of tortuous liability. At the
same time when the negligence is per se visible and it infringes
Article 21, relief claiming damages could be granted under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
18.In Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. V. Best Roadways
Ltd., 2000 (4) SCC 553, the Hon’ble Supreme Court no doubt held
that the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, High Court cannot grant compensation to the family of
victim who died by electrocution. However, in the very same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when there is
negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there,
it cannot be said there will be any bar to proceed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.’
13. Mr.Kalam denies liability to compensation as the officials of the Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board have not been implicated in the criminal case. This
arguments is rejected in the light of the fact that the child admittedly, succumbed
to electrocution on 14.03.2018. The mahazar report extracted below makes it clear
that there were ten electric lines placed in close proximity, all at a height of 150
metres. Thus, negligence on the part of the respondents is clearly established.
14. The Parvai Mahazar is extracted below:
‘04/03/2018?k; njjp khiy 19/45 kzpf;F nrhk';fyk;
fhty; epiya Fw;w vz; 51-18 u/s 337. 304(A) IPC kpd;rhuk;
gha;e;J kuzk; tHf;fpd; rk;gt ,lkhd g{rhhpg;gl;o md;id
ru!;tjp onulh;!; gpd;g[wk; rk;gt ,lj;jpy; itj;J rhl;rp
gue;jhkd; milahsk; fhl;oa ,lj;jpy; rhl;rpfs; (1) ma;ag;gh
taJ 29 S/o. bts;sp';fphp. Rpd;dbjhg;gk;gl;o. befkk;. (2) uh$;
taJ 67 S/o. fe;jrhkp. rpd;d bjhg;gk;gl;o. befkk;. vd;gth;fs;
Kd;dpiyapy; nrhk';fyk; fhty; epiya Ma;thsh; mk;rntzp
Mfpa vd;dhy; rk;gt ,lj;jpy; itj;j vGjp jahh; bra;j
ghh;it kf$h;/
rk;gt ,lkhdJ fhty; epiyaj;jpy; ,Ue;J 8 Km
tlnkw;nf cs;sJ/ rk;gt ,lk; g{rhhpg;gl;oapy; bghs;shr;rp to
jhuhg[uk; nuhl;od; tlg[wk; bjw;F ghh;j;j epiyapy; cs;s
md;id ru!;tjp onulh;!; filapd; gpd;gf;fk; cs;s fhyp
,lj;jpy; ele;J cs;sJ/ rk;gt ,lj;jpy; KUfd;. b$af;Fkhh;
bjd;de;njhg;g[ mjd; bjd;nfhl;oy; fPH;jsk;. Nky;jsk;
,Ujsk; cs;sJ/ rk;gt ,lj;jpy; fl;olj;jpw;F tlf;nf 8 mo
J}uj;jpy; xU kpd; tHpj;jlk; cs;sJ/ kpd;tHpjlj;jpy; nkny 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
fk;gpfs; mjw;F fPH; 4 fk;gpfs; mjw;F fPH; 4 fk;gpfs; vd;W
bry;fpwJ/ rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F tlnkw;F 150 mo J}uj;jpy;
kzpfz;ld; tPLk; 80 mo J}uj;jpy; xU fhh; brl;L tlf;nf
60 mo J}uj;jpy; g";R FnlhDk; tlfpHf;nf 75 moapy; xU
kpd;fk;gKk; fpHf;nf 30 mo J}uj;jpy; 344010598 TF IV or vd;w
kPl;lh; ghf;Rk; bjd;fpHf;nf 40 mo J}uj;jpy; NGM 96 vd;;w
kpd;fk;gk; cs;sJ/ rk;gt ,lj;jpy; Rkhh; 20 mo J}uj;jpy;
kpd; tHpj;jlk; cs;sJ/ rk;gtj;jpy; gad;gLj;jpa ,Uk;g[
Vzpa[k;. xU fapWk; fplf;fpwJ/ m';F fplf;Fk; bghUs;fs;
ifg;gw;Wjy; kf$hpy; ifg;gw;wg;gLk;/’
15. The arrayal, or otherwise, of the TNEB officials in the criminal case, is
thus irrelevant to the issue of compensation as their negligence and their role in the
child’s demise is clear, categoric and undeniable. The Parvai Mahazar provides for
a record of the events by the police authorities. Nothing in the counter affidavits or
even in the oral submissions, contradicts any of the findings contained therein.
Thus, and on the admitted facts as have revealed themselves to this Court, I am of
the categoric view that the respondents have been grossly negligence in not
ensuring the safety of the overhead wires in terms of Rule 91 of the Rules.
16. Board Proceedings in B.P.No.6 dated 16.10.2019 quantifies
compensation payable by the Electricity Board in various situations, including on
death of a person, if attributable to negligence on the part of the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
Electricity Board, at a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The relevant portion of the
Proceedings read thus:
‘Accident – Compensation payable by TANGEDCO in cases of Fatal/Non-
Fatal, Nondepartmental, Mechanical/Electrical accidents to human
beings/animals – Enhancement of payment of compensation - Orders –
Issued.
(Administrative Branch)
(Per.) (FB) TANGEDCO Proceedings No.6 Dated 16 th October 2019.
Purattasi-29, Vikari Varudam,
Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2050.
READ:
1. (Per.) (FB) TANGEDCO Proceedings No.5, Dated 29.04.2013.
2. Extract from the Minutes of 90th Board Meeting of the TANGEDCO
held on 30.09.2019.
---
PROCEEDINGS
In modification of the orders issued in the B.P. cited, the
TANGEDCO directs that the exgratia payment payable on compassionate
grounds in respect of Fatal/Non-fatal, Non-departmental,
Mechanical/Electrical accidents to human beings/animals is enhanced as
detailed below:-
Sl.No Mode of Accident Existing Enhanced Competent
. Authority
1 For Fatal Rs.2,00,00 Rs.5,00,000
0/- /-
2 For No-Fatal Rs.1,00,00 Rs.2,00,000 Chief
0/- /- Engineer/Pe
a) Loss of two
rsonnel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
limgs or two Rs.1,00,000
eyes /-
b) Loss of one
Limb or one eye
3 Animals Rs.10,000/ Rs.25,000/-
-
(Cow/Buffalow/Bullock
)
2. The above enhanced rates of compensation shall be paid to the
victims on incidents reported on or after 29.07.2019. Previous closed files
need not be reopened.
(By Order of the Board of TANGEDCO)
A.Ashok Kumar,
Chief Engineer/Personnel.
***
TANGEDCO – Bonus and Ex-gratia to Workmen of TANGEDCO or the
year 2018-2019 - Orders – Issued.
(Secretariat Branch)
(Per.) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No.189 Dated 16th October
2019.
Purattasi-29, Vikari
Varudam,
Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2050.
READ:
i) (Per.) FB TANGEDCO Proceedings No.9, (SB) Dated 02.03.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
ii) G.O.Ms.No.302, Finance (BPE) Department, Dated 26.09.2019.
---
PROCEEDINGS
The quantum of Bonus and Ex-gratia payable for the financial year
2018-2019 to the Workmen of the TANGEDCO covered by the Wage
Settlement has been considered in consultaion with Government. The
ceiling limit for Rs.3,500/- payment of Bonus and Ex-gratia has been
enhanced to Rs.7,000/- as per the Revised Bonus Act 2015. In the reference
second cited, the Government have accorded sanction for payment of Bonus
and Ex-gratia to the employees of the TANGEDCO. The Government of
Tamil Nadu has announced for payment of Bonus and Ex-gratia to the
eligible employees of TANGEDCO.’
17. In my considered view, the aforesaid Proceedings would be applicable to
the facts and circumstances of the present case, in light of the clear negligence
established on the part of the respondents. Mandamus as sought for is thus issued,
directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only)
to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date of issue of a copy of this
order. Court makes it clear that the compensation ordered in this matter would no
bearing in the pending criminal case.
18.A direction is also issued to the concerned authorities to ensure that there
is strict adherence to the requirements Rule 91 within a period of three months
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
from date of uploading of an order in the official portal of the High Court. This
writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
12.04.2022
vs
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
To
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Udumalai,
Kongalnagaram, Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
vs
W.P.No.17987 of 2019
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
