Madras High Court
A.Bhuvaneshwari vs Tamilnadu Generation And ... on 30 March, 2022
WP NO.29748 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
WP NO.29748 OF 2014
A.Bhuvaneshwari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO)
Rep. by the Chairman
Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2.Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO)
The Superintending Engineer
Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.
3.Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO)
The Assistant Engineer
Ulundurpet West Division
Villupuram District.
4.Elumali S/o. Sundaram ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.29748 OF 2014
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records issued by the third respondent impugned letter dated on 11.09.2014
in Proceedings No.Ka.No.Umepo/kema/u.pattai/ko.v.ve/va.u/a.no95/14 illegal
and quash the same and direct the third respondent to pay compensation to
the petitioner sum of Rs.40,00,000/- due to the electrocution of death of the
petitioner's husband.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ranganathan
For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh
1 to 3 Standing Counsel
ORDER
The petitioner's husband for the purpose of doing agricultural
work in his land, went to the field on 13.08.2014 at 07.00 am. Since he did
not return in time, the petitioner went and search of him and found that he
was lying on the barbed electric wire run between the land of the petitioner
and the fence of the fourth respondent land. After finding that the petitioner's
husband was electrocuted, she sought assistance of the villagers and they
have taken to him to the Hospital, where her husband was declared dead due
to electrocution. A criminal case was also registered under Section 304 (ii)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.29748 OF 2014
IPC in Crime No.244/2014 against the fourth respondent and he was set at
liberty by the Court on 14.08.2014 by way of anticipatory bail. The petitioner
has claimed compensation for the death of her husband, which was rejected
by the third respondent on the ground that the fourth respondent illegally
used electricity to his fence and therefore, the third respondent is not liable to
pay and that it is only the fourth respondent who illegally used the electricity
is liable for his illegal act. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has
preferred the above writ petition claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for
the death of her husband.
2.Heard the submissions made on either side.
3.It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TAMIL
NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. SUMATHI AND OTHERS [2000 (4)
SCC 543] has categorically held that the disputed questions of fact arose
between the parties should not be entertained in writ petitions under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.29748 OF 2014
4.In yet another judgment in SDO. GRID CORPORATION OF
ORISSA LTD., VS. TIMUDU ORAM [2005 (6) SCC 156] the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that the actions in tort and part of
negligence are required to be established initially by the claimants. The mere
fact that electric transmission wires belonging to the Electricity Board had
snapped and the deceased had come into contact with wire and died by
himself was not sufficient for awarding compensation. The Court is required
to examine as to whether the wire had snapped due to negligence on the part
of the Electricity Board as a result of which the deceased had come into
contact with the wire. Therefore, when such disputed questions of fact are
involved, it cannot be decided in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and the matter has to be referred to the Civil Court.
5.In the present case, the husband of the petitioner said to have
been fallen on the barbed electric wire fence. There is no proof to show that
the electrocution of the barbed wire fence was permitted by the respondent
Electricity Board. Further, there is no detail as to how the petitioner's husband
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.29748 OF 2014
came in contact to the fence. Further, there is no specific allegation of
negligence on the part of the respondent Electricity Board. In order to clarify
the negligence and liability to pay compensation, the petitioner has to
establish the basic facts, which requires to be proved only by way of letting in
evidence. Therefore, in the absence of any proof of negligence, this Court is
not in a position to entertain the writ petition.
6.Therefore, following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgments cited supra, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to approach the Civil Court to redress her grievance. The period
spent in the writ petition stands excluded for the purpose of limitation as per
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
7.In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
30.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
TK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.29748 OF 2014
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK
To
1.The Chairman
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO)
Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2.Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO)
The Superintending Engineer
Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.
3.Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO)
The Assistant Engineer
Ulundurpet West Division, Villupuram District.
WP NO.29748 OF 2014
30.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
