Madras High Court
G.Palani vs The Chairman on 2 January, 2023
W.A(MD) No.1528 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD) No.1528 of 2022
G.Palani ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Chairman, TNEB,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
(Operation and Maintenance)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
District Collectorate,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Sivagangai Road,
Near SIPCOT,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Thiruppachethi Sub-Station,
Thiruppachethi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
W.A(MD) No.1528 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Section I5 of Letters Patent against
the order dated 25.07.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.6642 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr.SP.Vijay Nivas
For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan,
Standing Counsel.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
Challenging the order dated 25.07.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.
6642 of 2022, the appellant has come forward with this writ appeal.
2. It is the case of the appellant / writ petitioner that his wife died
due to electrocution in the open terrace on 11.02.2022. A complaint was
given and the same has been registered in Crime No.21 of 2022 on the
file of the Thiruppachethi Police Station. Though the petitioner made a
representation seeking for compensation, the same was not considered by
the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this
Court in W.P.(MD)No.6642/2022, seeking for a direction to the
respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of his
wife viz., Banu. The Writ Court, by order dated 25.07.2022, dismissed
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1528 of 2022
the said writ petition. As against the same, the petitioner has filed this
Writ Appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the postmortem report and the FIR clearly shows that the petitioner's wife
died due to electrocution and therefore, he is entitled to get compensation
for the death of his wife. He further submitted that the learned Single
Judge has not considered the petitioner's case in proper perspective and
therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge warrants interference.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
5. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that
a complaint was given for the death of the petitioner's wife viz., Banu,
who died due to electrocution in the open terrace and the same has been
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1528 of 2022
registered in Crime No.21 of 2022 on the file of the Thiruppachethi
Police Station. On a perusal of the postmortem report, we find that there
is no evidence to show that petitioner's wife died due to electrocution.
Even in the complaint also, the petitioner has stated that his wife may be
died due to electrocution. Apart from that, no other materials have been
placed before this Court to show that the aforesaid Banu died due to
electrocution. Further, it is seen that no final report has also been filed
before the concerned Court.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and
others Vs. Atmanand Singh and others reported in (2020) 6 SCC 256,
has held as follows:
“22. We restate the above position that when the
petition raises questions of fact of complex nature, such as in
the present case, which may for their determination require
oral and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by
the party concerned and also because the relief sought is
merely for ordering a refund of money, the High Court should
be loath in entertaining such writ petition and instead must
relegate the parties to remedy of a civil suit. Had it been a
case where material facts referred to in the writ petition are
admitted facts or indisputable facts, the High Court may be
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1528 of 2022
justified in examining the claim of the writ petitioner on its
own merits in accordance with law.”
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the view that the petitioner has not filed any documents to prove that the
his wife died due electrocution and these facts are the disputed facts.
The same has to be established by adducing oral and documentary
evidence. In the absence of such evidence, we are not inclined to
entertain this Writ Appeal. Therefore, the order passed by the learned
single Judge is sustainable and warrants no interference.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed with the liberty to the
appellant to work out his remedy before the competent civil Court. No
costs.
[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.]
02.01.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsm
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1528 of 2022
To
1.The Chairman, TNEB,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
(Operation and Maintenance)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
District Collectorate,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Sivagangai Road,
Near SIPCOT,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Thiruppachethi Sub-Station,
Thiruppachethi, Sivagangai District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1528 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
vsm
W.A.(MD)No.1528 of 2022
02.01.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
