Madras High Court

R. Poongavanam vs The Chairman on 6 September, 2022

Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 6/9/2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

R. Poongavanam ... Petitioner

1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation of Energy and
Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO)
Annasalai
Chennai 600 002.

2. The Superintending Engineer
Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Villupuram.

3. The Executive Engineer
Operation and Maintenance
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Kandamangalam
Villupuram Taluk.

4. The Assistant Engineer
Operation & Maintenance
Thiruchittrambalam Koot Road, Vanur Taluk
Villupuram. ... Respondents

Page No:1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4

to pay a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest for causing death of

the petitioner husband due to the negligence.

For Petitioner ... Ms.Anisree Sangavi
for
M/s.Usha Ramman

For respondents ... Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh

-----
ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pay a

compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest for causing death of the

petitioner's husband due to negligence.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition

are as follows:-

Deceased Radhakrishnan, is the husband of the petitioner, doing

cultivation, agricultural operation and supplying milk. He is the sole bread

Page No:2/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

winner of the family and earned Rs.80,000/- p.a. On 21/9/2010, when the

deceased went to the field to collect grass, he was electrocuted by electric high

tension broken wire line lying in Rayapudupakkam Pettai Koil Manyam and he

died on the spot. A case in Crime No.174 of 2010 has been registered. Under

Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Heard Ms.Anisree Sangavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that due to

the poor maintenance of the electricity high tension wire by the respondents,

caused the death of the deceased. Lawyer notice, dated 2/11/2010 issued by the

petitioner, claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Even though the

respondents received notice on 3/11/2010, the respondents have not taken any

action. If the respondents Board had properly maintained the live wires, ill-

fated accident would have been averted. Therefore, submitted that negligence

cannot be disputed on the petitioner. Hence, prays for compensation.

Page No:3/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, produced the

counter affidavit filed by the Junior Engineer, O & M, North, TANGEDCO,

Thiruchitrambalam, wherein it is stated that as per Section 72 of the Limitation

Act, 1963, the aggrieved person ought to have filed a suit claiming the

compensation within one year from the date of the alleged commission. The

deceased ought not to have touched the snapped wire. Therefore, the petitioner

is not entitled to blame the Electricity Board.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted

that negligence is only on the part of the deceased and further, suit should have

been filed. Since, there is a disputed question of fact, writ petition is not

maintainable.

7. Perused the entire materials available on record.

8. It is not disputed that the death of the petitioner's husband is due to

electrocution. A perusal of the First Information Report would show that

electrocution has happened due to the snapped wire on the agricultural field.

This Court on an earlier occasion, in Appeal Suit No. 758 of 2012 (1. Vestas

Page No:4/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

RRB India Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, No.189, Sukhder Vihar, New

Delhi 110 025 and another Vs. 1. K. Ramasamy and two others, has dealt with

the similar issue, wherein this Court had extracted the relevant portion from the

judgment reported in 2002 (1) CTC 362, M.P.ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs.

SHAIL KUMARI, it has been held as follows:-

“17. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable

risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. This is

based on the doctrine of strict liability. The concept of

negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm

could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If

the third defendant did all that which could be done for

avoiding the harm, he cannot be held liable when the

action is based on any negligence attributed. But such

consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability

where the defendant is held liable irrespective of

whether he could have avoided the particular harm by

taking precautions. .........where an enterprise is

engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity

Page No:5/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

and harm is caused on any one on account of the

accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise

is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those

who are affected by the accident; such liability is not

subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict

liability under the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher (1868)

LR 3 HL 330.

9. Under the principles of strict liability, the Electricity Department

ought to have maintained the wire carefully and properly and allowing the

wires get snapped frequently is the negligence on the part of the Electricity

Department. Such things cannot be ignored altogether.

10. In R.KUMAR Vs. ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT {2017 (1)

CTC 668}, the learned Single Judge has observed at para Nos.6 and 7 are as

follows:-

“6. The first question that needs to be addressed

is whether the snapping of OH-LT live wire due to

Page No:6/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

heavy wire and rain, would amount to an “Act of

God”. It is needless to mention that prior to

installation of live-wire, careful precaution must be

taken to ensure that the electric wires which are prone

to come in contact with the public if snapped in times

of heavy rain and wind, are installed with utmost

durability and endeavour to withstand such unforeseen

calamity. Rigorous periodical inspection needs to be

conducted to such installation to avoid any untoward

incident. Absence of the precaution would amount to

negligence on the part of the respondents. It is

common knowledge that rain tends to become heavy

only after gradual and constant down-pour thereby

turning into storm or gale wind, which are always

predictable and hence precautions like cutting down

the power supply to the openly installed live wires and

transformer is essential during such untoward

incidents.

Page No:7/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

7. In the case on hand, the live wire, to which

the deceased Victor came into contact, had snapped

either due poorly installed electric pole or lack of

proper and periodical maintenance of the same. The

respondents do not seem to have taken any precaution

to cut down the power supply, when heavy rains and

winds were anticipated. I do not find any of the

reasonings put forth by the learned counsel for the

second respondent in its counter affidavit as well as

during his oral submissions to the effect that the

accident was due to an “Act of God”. On the other

hand, the unfortunate incident is attributable due to the

negligence on the part of the concerned Officials of the

second respondent.”

11. In ARULMERI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, TNEB

(2013) 2 MLJ 302, this Court has rejected the objection of the electricity board

with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and directed the

respondents to compensate the petitioner.

Page No:8/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

12. Considering the strict liability theory, it is the duty of the

respondents to maintain the High Tension wire in a proper manner. Merely

because the wire got snapped, it cannot be stated by the Department that the

wire has been touched by the deceased negligently. In such a view of the

matter, this Court is of the view that the respondents are liable to pay

compensation.

13. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged

about 70 years, at the time of his death, who was an agriculturalist and also

selling milk and earned Rs.300/- per day. This Court will fix the notional

income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m (300 x 30). If ¼ is deducted towards

the personal expenses, since the petitioner leaving behind his wife, three

daughter and one son, and also fixing multiplier at 5 and as the number of

dependents/ family members of the deceased is 5, at the time of death, after

deducting 1/4th of his income, this Court awards a sum of Rs.4,05,000/-

towards loss of dependency.

9,000 x ¼ = Rs.2,250, 9,000 – 2,250 = Rs.6,750/- x 12 = Rs.81,000/- x 5

= Rs.4,05,000/-.

Page No:9/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

Further this Court also hereby awards various compensation under the

following heads:-

                                  Loss of Estate                  ...          Rs.15,000/-
                                  Loss of consortium              ...          Rs.40,000/-
                                  Funeral Expenses                ...          Rs.15,000/-
                                  Transport expenses              ...          Rs. 5,000/-
                                                                               ---------------
                                                                               Rs,4,80,000/-
                                                                               ---------------

14. In total, this Court hereby rounded off the above amount of

Rs.4,80,000/-and awards a sum of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five lakhs only) as

compensation. The respondents/Electricity Board are hereby directed to pay

the said amount as compensation to the petitioner, with interest at 7.5% p.a.,

from the date of accident, till the date of payment, within a period of six weeks,

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15. In fine, the writ petition is allowed, on the above terms. No costs.

6/9/2022 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order

mvs.

Page No:10/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition No.11432 of 2014

1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Generation of Energy and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) Annasalai Chennai 600 002.