Madras High Court
T.L.Mani vs The Junior Engineer on 10 August, 2022
WP.No.33447/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
WP.No.33447/2017
T.L.Mani ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Junior Engineer
Distribution and Maintenance
Thirutani [Rural]
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Thiruvallur District.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity [Production &
Distribution] Corporation
Chennai 600 002.
3.The Divisional Engineer
Thiruvallore Division
Thiruvallore District.
4.The Executive Engineer
Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution
Circle, Thirutani, Thiruvallore District. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2017
Prayer: Writ Petition filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 04.09.2017 and order payment of just
compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Devammal.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Richard Suresh Kumar
For RR 1 to 3 : Ms.V.Revathy for
Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh
Standing counsel
ORDER
(1) The petitioner seeks compensation for the death of his mother due to
electrocution.
(2) The case of the petitioner is that his mother Devammal who was aged
about 60 years, apart from being a home-maker, was also looking
after the agricultural operations in the lands owned by the family. On
12.06.2014, at around 11.00 a.m., the deceased Devammal left the
house to go to the lands for carrying out certain agricultural
operations. Since she did not return till about 5.00 p.m., in the
evening, the petitioner along with his friends went in search of his
mother and found her lying unconscious in the field. They also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2017
discovered that she had come in contact with the live wire that had
snapped. Upon information, the line-man diffused the transformer
and thereafter, she was taken to the hospital and was declared dead
on arrival. A First Information Report was registered by the Police
recording the said incident. The Post-mortem Report also revealed
that the petitioner's mother had died due to electrocution. The
petitioner would contend that his mother was hale and healthy and she
was looking after the lands and the family and had assessed her
notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month. According to the petitioner,
since the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the
respondents/Company, the respondents are liable to pay the
compensation.
(3) Mr.C.Richard Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that a reading of the FIR and the Postmortem Report would
show that the petitioner's mother had died due to electrocution since
she had stepped on a live wire which had snapped. Contending that
the negligence on the part of the respondents stood proved, the
learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is entitled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2017
compensation. He would also submit that the formula adopted by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in arriving at the compensation for
death can be usefully applied in the case on hand also.
(4) Contending contra, Ms.V.Revathy, learned standing counsel
appearing for the respondents would submit that the snapping of the
wire was due to cyclone and it was an act of God and therefore, the
respondents cannot be held to have been negligent. In the absence of
any negligence, the respondents will not be liable to pay the
compensation. According to her, the petitioner would at best be
entitled to the compensation fixed by the respondents for cases of
accidental deaths, namely, Rs.2 lakhs. Learned counsel would also
rely upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated
12.07.2022 made in WA.Nos.1320/2022, 2424 & 2425/2021 in
B.Saralvadevi and others Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Chief Secretary, Fort St George, Chennai and others,
wherein it was held that unless negligence is writ large on the face of
the record a writ, for compensation for death due to electrocution,
will not lie inasmuch as the Constitutional Court sitting under Article
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2017
226 will not go into the disputed questions of facts.
(5) Mr.C.Richard Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would
invite my attention to paragraph No.18 of the said judgment itself to
contend that if negligence is proved, then the jurisdiction under
Article 226 can be exercised and each case would have to be
analysed on the facts. Pointing out that the writ appeals arose out of
cases where compensation was directed to be paid for an accident
caused by burst of transformer, he would submit that the Division
Bench had held the fact that there are disputed questions of fact with
regard to negligence in those cases since the area near the transformer
is a prohibited area and there is always a danger sign warning people
not to go near it.
(6) I have considered the rival submissions.
(7) As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
Hon'ble First Bench in the judgment in Saraladevi's case itself has
pointed out that this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to grant compensation where
negligence is not in dispute. Further, the writ petition was entertained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2017
in the year 2017 and it is almost five years since then. I do not think
that this writ petition can be thrown out on the availability of an
alternative remedy. Only if this Court comes to the conclusion that it
has no jurisdiction to award compensation, it may not be proper to
award compensation, it may be proper to relegate the petitioner to
alternative remedy. Since there are no disputed questions of facts
involved, the petitioner need not be relegated to the alternative
remedy that too after a lapse of five years.
(8) In the case on hand, negligence on the part of the respondents is writ
large in the very manner in which the accident has happened. The
newspapers reports would also show that the wire which had
snapped, had not been repaired for two days. The claim made that
there was cyclone and wire had snapped due to the cyclone cannot be
a ground for the respondents to deny negligence on their part. I am
therefore of the considered opinion that this case would come under
the exceptions carved out by the Division Bench in paragraph NO.18
of its judgment.
(9) Negligence having been proved, the only question that is left out to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2017
decided is the quantum of compensation. The petitioner himself has
assessed the monthly income of his mother at Rs.6,000/-. There are
four dependants. If we deduct 1/4th for personal expenses, the
average monthly income would be Rs.4,500/- per month. The annual
loss of dependency is Rs.54,000/-. The mother of the petitioner was
admittedly aged 50 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the
multiplier applicable would be '9'. Thus, the calculated total
compensation comes to Rs.4,86,000/-. I make it clear that the method
of calculation prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act has been used
only as a tool to determine the fair compensation and it cannot be a
foolproof method also. In any event, as of today, as per the prevailing
Government Orders, the respondents/Corporation are paying
Rs.5,00,000/- for deaths due to electrocution as compensation. I
therefore do not see any difficulty in directing the respondents to pay
a sum of Rs.4,86,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the
date of the writ, i.e., 08.12.2017 till the date of payment. The sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- that has been disbursed pursuant to the interim order,
will be adjusted and the interest will be applicable only for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2017
remaining sum of Rs.2,86,000/-.
(10) With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs.
10.08.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
Index : No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2017
To
1.The Junior Engineer
Distribution and Maintenance
Thirutani [Rural]
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Thiruvallur District.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity [Production &
Distribution] Corporation
Chennai 600 002.
3.The Divisional Engineer
Thiruvallore Division
Thiruvallore District.
4.The Executive Engineer
Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution
Circle, Thirutani, Thiruvallore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2017
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AP
WP.No.33447/2017
10.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
