Madras High Court
Palaniammal vs The Chair Person on 10 August, 2023
W.P(MD)No.11086 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.11086 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
Palaniammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chair Person,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.The Junior Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Koompatti, Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Station House Officer,
Koomapatti Police Station,
Koomapatti,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District.
5.Gurusamy ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11086 of 2015
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
Respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner to a sum of
Rs.10 lakhs for die of the Petitioner's husband by electrocution within the
time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj,
Spl. Government Pleader for R3 & R4.
Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha,
Standing Counsel for R1 & R2.
Mr.Jagadeesh Pandian for R5.
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner's husband is said to have worked as an agricultural
labour in the farm owned by the fifth respondent. It is specifically
alleged that the fifth respondent had put an illegal electric fencing and
that the petitioner's husband accidently came in contact with the same on
11.05.2025 and died as a result of electrocution. In this regard, Crime
No.47 of 2015 was registered under Section 304(A) of IPC and also the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11086 of 2015
provisions of the Electricity Act. The petitioner seeks compensation for
the death of her husband due to electrocution.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the
contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and
called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.
4.TANGEDCO filed counter affidavit and the learned standing
counsel submitted that liability can be fastened only on the fifth
respondent and not on the corporation.
5.The learned counsel for the fifth respondent filed counter
affidavit and submitted that the fifth respondent had been acquitted in
S.C.No.54 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions
Court, Virudhunagar District on 21.06.2023 and that in the light of the
findings set out therein, the writ petition will have to be dismissed.
6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record. I must clarify at the outset that TANGEDCO has to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11086 of 2015
be necessarily exonerated. This is because no fault or negligence can be
attributed to TANGEDCO or its officials. If the fifth respondent had put
up an illegal electric fencing and the death has occurred on that score, the
remedy is to proceed only against the fifth respondent.
7.The stand of the fifth respondent is that the petitioner's husband
did not die due to electrocution. My attention is drawn to the relevant
finding set out in the judgment dated 21.06.2023 in S.C.No.54 of 2016.
The fifth respondent was prosecuted along with his brother. The doctor
who issued the postmortem certificate was examined as P.W.12. The trial
Court vide Ex.B4 dated 16.05.2015 noted that the cause of death as due
respiratory arrest. However, Ex.B5 dated 26.11.2015 states that
respiratory arrest took place due to electrocution. A careful reading of
Paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the judgment indicates that the trial Court
disbelieved that the death was due to electrocution.
8.When I am faced with this finding rendered by the trial Court, it
is not possible for me to direct the fifth respondent to pay compensation
to the petitioner. At the same time, as rightly pointed out by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11086 of 2015
counsel for the petitioner, since the trial Court applied the standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt, it is possible that such conclusion was
arrived at.
9.The petitioner cannot be denied her right to proceed against the
fifth respondent before the jurisdictional Civil Court. Only because I am
faced with such a finding, I am not in a position to grant relief in the writ
petition. I however permit the petitioner to file civil suit against the fifth
respondent and his brother. If such a suit is filed within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, it will be
entertained without reference to limitation. In other words, limitation
will not be put as a bar against the petitioner. If the petitioner is not in a
position to pay the court fee, she can be allowed to file the suit in
indigent capacity. After the suit is numbered, it shall be disposed of on
merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months
thereafter. I make it clear that the Civil Court will decide the issue
without being influenced by the outcome of this writ petition. Likewise
the defence of the fifth respondent is also left open.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11086 of 2015
10.With this liberty to the petitioner to move the jurisdictional
Civil Court and direction to the Civil Court as mentioned above, this writ
petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
10.08.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:-
1.The Station House Officer,
Koomapatti Police Station,
Koomapatti,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11086 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11086 of 2015
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.11086 of 2015
10.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
