Madras High Court
T.L.Mani vs The Junior Engineer on 10 August, 2022
WP.No.33447/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
WP.No.33447/2016
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.33447/2016
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.33447/2016
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2016
entitled to 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2016
will not lie inasmuch as the Constitutional Court sitting under Article
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2016
negligence is not in dispute. Further, the writ petition was
entertained 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2016
(9) Negligence having been proved, the only question that is left out to
be 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2016
pursuant to the interim order, will be adjusted and the interest will be
applicable only for the 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 : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.33447/2016
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.33447/2016
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AP
WP.No.33447/2016
10.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
