Madras High Court
The Chairman vs Lakshmi on 21 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD) No.1143 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 21.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A(MD) No.1143 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.9012 of 2022
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation of Electricity
and Distribution Corporation Limited,
144, Annasalai,
Chennai-02.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation of Electricity,
and Distribution Corporation Limited,
Superintending Engineer Office,
Trichy Distribution Circle,
Trichy.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation of Electricity
and Distribution Corporation Limited,
Assistant Power Station,
Kaikatti Mettupatti,
Marungapuri Taluk,
Trichy District. ... Appellants / Respondents
Vs
Lakshmi ... Respondent / Petitioner
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 07:28:55 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1143 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying
this Court to set aside the order dated 03.08.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.
21115 of 2016 and allow this appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Deenadhyalan
For Respondent : Mr.AN.Ramanathan
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2. One Palanisamy died due to electrocution on 11.06.2016. In this
regard, Crime No.88 of 2016 was registered on the file of the Valanadu
Police Station. It is beyond dispute that the deceased was not at fault.
Claiming compensation, his wife Lakshmi filed W.P.(MD)No.21115 of
2016. The writ petition was allowed on 03.08.2022 in the following
terms:-
“7.It is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband had died due to
electrocution on 11.06.2016 while on his way to his filed to irrigate the
crops. The petitioner has contended that the cable wire which was
connected to electric pole had fallen on the live wire and thereafter, it fell
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 07:28:55 pm )
on field so that the petitioner's husband got electrocuted. However, the
respondents have contended that the live wire was intact and only cable TV
wire has got disconnected and hence, they are not responsible for the
accident.
8.Admittedly, the cable TV wire has been tied up in the electric
post belonging to the respondents. The said tying up of cable TV wire is an
unauthorised act. The respondent authorities have not initiated any action
for removing the said cable T.V wire from the electric post. If the
respondent authorities have removed the said unauthorised TV wire, the
accident would not have happened. The cable TV wire which got
disconnected had fallen upon the live electric wire and thereafter, touched
the ground due to which the petitioner's husband got electrocuted and died.
Hence, the contention of the respondents that they are not responsible for
the accident is not legally sustainable and they are liable to pay the
compensation.
9.The petitioner's husband was aged about 48 year as per the death
certificate on 11.06.2016. He was an agriculturist and there is no concrete
proof for his monthly income. He died leaving behind his wife and two
sons. Our High Court in a judgement reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad
26416 (Kannaki Vs.S.Sukumar and another) in C.M.A.No.3253 of 2019,
dated 15.10.2020 has arrived at a finding that the income of an agriculturist
could be notionally calculated at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month for an
accident that has taken place in the year 2016.
10.Based upon the said judgment, this Court has calculated the
quantum of compensation as follows:
(i). The notional income is Rs.8000/-. After deducting 1/3rd , (8,000X1/3) , it
comes to Rs.5334/-. The correct multiplier for the age of 48 is 13.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 07:28:55 pm )
(i). Total Loss of dependency = Rs.8,32,104/-
( Rs.5334 X12X13)
(ii). Loss of Consortium = Rs. 40,000/-
(iii). Loss of Estate = Rs. 15,000/-
(iv). Transport Charges = Rs. 5,000/-
(v). Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000/-
Total = Rs. 9,07,104/-
11.The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,07,104/- as
compensation to the petitioner with interest at 6% per annum from
12.06.2016 till the date of realisation. The said payment shall be made
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.”
Aggrieved by the said order, this writ appeal has been filed by
TANGEDCO.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
petitioner should have gone to the Civil Court and not invoked writ
jurisdiction. We are not impressed by this argument. When the
petitioner's husband was not at fault, TANGEDCO is definitely liable to
pay compensation in view of its absolute liability. The learned single
Judge has applied the standard formula. The amount awarded cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 07:28:55 pm )
said to be excessive by any standard. Interference is not warranted. The
writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
21.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
rmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 07:28:55 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
rmi
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 07:28:55 pm )
