Madras High Court
G.Sasikala vs The Tamil Nadu Generation And on 3 June, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.16892 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.16892 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.17874 of 2021
G.Sasikala ...Petitioner
-Vs -
1. The Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Superintendent Engineer – Chengalpet,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.130, G.S.T. Road,
Chengalpattu – 603 001.
3. The Assistant Engineer/O & M,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Karasangal, No.1/199,
Second Street, Anna Nagar,
Padappai – 601 301. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.16892 of 2021
the petitioner a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the compensation with
18% interest from the date of the accident till the date of realization for
the death of her husband who died on 08.03.2020 on account of
electrocution by considering the petitioner's representation dated
07.10.2020 to the first respondent within a time frame as fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Govardhanan
For Respondents : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for direction directing the
respondents to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation with
18% interest for the death of the petitioner's husband due to electrocution
on 08.03.2020.
2. The petitioner's husband is an agriculturalist and on
08.03.2020, when her husband went to the agricultural field for watering
the crops, he got electrocuted by the live wire which was lying on the
field and he died due to electrocution on the spot. Immediately, complaint
was lodged and the same has been registered in Crime No.38 of 2020 on
08.03.2020 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. On the same day, the post
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mortem was conducted and the cause of death only due to electrocution.
The electrocution was occurred only due to the negligence of the
respondent and as such the petitioner sought for compensation. In
support of the petitioner's case, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in
W.P.(MD).No.15166 of 2020 dated 02.11.2020, in the case of
G.Sendhattikalaipandian Vs. The Inspector of Police and anr in which
this Court granted compensation by applying multiplier method.
3. The third respondent filed counter and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents submitted that the FIR was not registered
as against the respondents and electrocution was not occurred due to the
negligence on the part of the respondents. The low tension service wire
provided to the petitioner's village which was burned and cut itself in the
early morning and the same was not informed to the respondents by any
one. Therefore, the respondents could not be able to act accordingly to
stop the electricity supply. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any
compensation by way of multiplier such as motor accident claim.
However, the petitioner is entitled for compensation for fatal as per the
TANGEDCO Board proceedings No.6 dated 16.10.2019 to the tune of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.5 lakhs. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the
respondents already paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as interim compensation on
07.10.2021 by way of cheque. It was duly encashed by the petitioner.
Further she submitted that when there is no clear findings on whose
negligence the petitioner's husband died, it has to be borned into by way
of full fledged trial by the civil Court in order to decide the question of
negligence to determine the compensation.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
5. Admittedly, though FIR has been registered on the demise of
the petitioner's husband, no negligence foisted on the part of the
respondents. Therefore, it was registered only under Section 174 of
Cr.P.C., and no charge sheet has been laid as against the respondents for
the offence of negligence. It is true that when the petitioner's husband
went to agricultural land to irrigate the land, he touched live electric wire
which was lying on the agricultural field. Therefore, under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, this Court cannot fix liability on the part of the
respondents and also give compensation by applying multiplier method.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Court can exercise jurisdiction to award compensation in cases
where the negligence is on the face of it or is not disputed or denied by
the other side and not in every case, otherwise this Court would convert
itself into a civil Court to examine and decide the question of fact, which
may be of negligence or determination of compensation.
6. The respondents specifically denied the negligence on their
part due to which the petitioner's husband electrocuted and died. While it
being so, the compensation cannot be awarded by applying multiplier
method on the demise of the petitioner's husband. However, the petitioner
is entitled for compensation as per the TANGEDCO Board proceedings
No.6 dated 16.08.2019 to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Already the
petitioner received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as interim compensation as
awarded by this Court as interim order. Therefore, the respondents are
directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs
only) as per the TANEDCO Board proceedings No.6 dated 16.08.2019,
forthwith in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner is at liberty
to approach the Court concerned seeking compensation on the demise of
her husband due to electrocution. It is also made clear that the
observations made by this Court may not influence the civil Court while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deciding the compensation. Further the pendency period of this writ
petition before this Court may be excluded to file civil suit seeking
compensation while calculating limitation.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed
of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall
be no orders as to costs.
03.06.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Superintendent Engineer – Chengalpet,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.130, G.S.T. Road,
Chengalpattu – 603 001.
3. The Assistant Engineer/O & M,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Karasangal, No.1/199,
Second Street, Anna Nagar,
Padappai – 601 301.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
03.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
