Ramesh vs The Chairman
2024 Latest Caselaw 21301 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 21301 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 November, 2024

Madras High Court

Ramesh vs The Chairman on 8 November, 2024

                                                                        W.P No.24442 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 08.11.2024

                                                    CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                              W.P No.24442 of 2022


                 Ramesh                                                   ...Petitioner


                                                      Vs.

                 1.The Chairman
                   Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO)
                   Chennai.

                 2.The Executive Engineer (Operation & Maintenance)
                   Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO)
                   Tindivanam
                   Villupuram.

                 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer
                   Jakkampettai
                   Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO)
                   Tindivanam
                   Villupuram District.

                 4.The Associate Executive Engineer
                   Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO)
                   Villupuram.

                 5.Seethapathy
                 6.Shakila                                              ...Respondents


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                 1/9
                                                                                    W.P No.24442 of 2022




                 Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

                 issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay

                 compensation a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs Only) for the death of

                 the petitioner's father namely Chinnathambi due to electrocution.



                                  For Petitioner     : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef

                                  For Respondents : Mr.V.Venkata Seshaiya for R1 to R4
                                                    Standing Counsel
                                                    R5 & R6 -Not ready in notice



                                                       ORDER

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents1 to 3 to

pay compensation of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of his father

namely Chinnathambi due to electrocution.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father died due to

electrocution on 17.04.2019 when he was herding near the land belonged to

Seethapathy Reddiar, the fourth respondent herein. It was further averred that

there was live electrical fence with illegal electric connection by the fourth

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

respondent and the petitioner's father came in contact with illegal electric

fence put up by the fourth respondent and died on the spot.

3. It is further stated by the petitioner that the official respondents

1 to 4 failed to take action against the illegal tapping of energy by the private

respondents for putting electric fencing. As a consequence of illegal electrical

fencing, his father died. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation on

30.04.2019 before the respondents seeking appropriate compensation and the

same has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the

official respondents conducted regular inspection and prevented illegal taping

by the private respondents, the incident would not have been occurred.

Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that the death of the petitioner's father

had occurred only due to negligence of the official respondents in not

conducting regular inspection for prevention of tapping of electric energy.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of

this Court in Duraisamy Vs. The Executive Engineer and others, in

W.P.No.31744 of 2002, in support of her arguments.

6. The learned counsel for the official respondents would submit

that the private respondents indulged in the illegal tapping of the electricity

without knowledge of the official respondents. Therefore, the respondents 1 to

4 cannot be blamed for accident.

7. The learned counsel for the official respondents further

submitted that the illegal tapping of electricity by the private respondents had

taken place in a remote agricultural land and therefore, regular inspection of

the same is not possible.

8. Even as per the averments found in the affidavit filed in

support of this Writ Petition, it is clear that the electrocution had taken place

due to the illegal electrical fence put up by the fourth respondent in his

agricultural land. Therefore, the official respondents 1 to 3 cannot be held

responsible for the illegal act of the private respondents. The submission made

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

by the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to failure of the respondents

in conducting regular inspection is also not acceptable to this Court, in view

of the fact that the accident had occurred in a remote agricultural land and

therefore, the chance of regular inspection of the same is not possible. In fact

the said plea raised by the petitioner was considered and found against the

petitioner in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in

para No.36, which reads thus:

“36. In my humble opinion, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be strictly applicable to the facts of this case for the reason that in the case on hand, insofar as supply of electricity to the agricultural filed is concerned, it is done in the interior areas of the Villages, through out the State and that the chances of inspecting, as to whether there is any pilferage or malpractice is rather remote, unless specific complaints are received, as compared to the case of a supply of electricity for residential/commercial purposes, where there is tariff. It is also to be noted, when agriculturalists are not levied any charges for use of electricity, there would not be any possibility of taking metre reading at regular intervals for the purpose of levying consumption charges. Therefore, considering the vast extent of agricultural lands, one cannot

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

expect inspection at the place of supply frequently, unless there is any specific complaint/report of illegal usage of the same for any other purpose, other than agriculture.

10. Therefore, on facts and circumstances of this case, the official

respondents 1 to 4 cannot be held liable for the accident.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted by

relying on the decision in Duraisamy Vs. The Executive Engineer and

others, (cited supra) that the respondents 1 to 4 may be directed to pay the

compensation amount to the petitioner and adjust the same with the deposit

amount available with them as against the electricity connection by the private

respondents. The learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that

the electricity service connection given to the private respondents is a free

agricultural connection as no deposit amount was collected from the private

respondents.

12. In such circumstances, the request made by the petitioner

cannot be accepted and accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

it is open to the petitioner to work his remedy before the private respondents

by filing a civil suit. The petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken by him

in prosecuting the Writ Petition before this Court (05.09.2022 to date of

receipt of copy of this order), while calculating the limitation for filing the

civil suit against the private respondents. No costs.




                                                                                        08.11.2024

                 Index      : Yes/No
                 Internet   : Yes/No
                 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
                 dna




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis





                 To

                 1.The Chairman