Disposed

Valiveru Mathaiah, v. The Superintending Engineer

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Nov 2020WP/20588/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought direction to respondents for payment of ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs regarding the death of his son due to an electric shock. The High Court, in its interests of justice, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation under the relevant Regulation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for payment of ex-gratia under Regulation No.2 of 2017 within six weeks.

Valiveru Mathaiah, Vs The Superi… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.20588 of 2020

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed

¶5

seeking the following relief/s:

¶6

“…to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents herein, holding that the inaction on the part of the respondents for not paying minimum compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakhs (Rupees five Lakhs only) to the petitioner herein, for the death of his son due to “Electric Shock” on 14.02.2018 as per A.P Gazette notification No.241, Date 29.05.2017 and in terms of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad, in a similar case, in its orders dated 29.07.2020 in WP.No.511 of 2006 even after lapse of more than a year as illegal, arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and consequently to direct the respondents to pay exgratia ofRs.5.00 Lakhs to the petitioner, within a time bound period and pass such other order or orders…”

¶7

Heard Sri Hari Kishan Kudikala, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material record.

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that, on 14.02.2018, his son namely Valiveru Anand, met with fatal electric shock while attempting to join disconnected supply wire to the house and died instantaneously. The said accident is a non-departmental fatal accident. Police also registered a case in Crime No.40 of 2018, and conducted inquest. In the postmortem report, the medical officer opined that the cause of death is ‘cardiac arrest due to electric shock’. The petitioner’s family is eking out livelihood by working as daily wage labour. The petitioner approached the concerned authorities several times for payment of ex-gratia/compensation, but in vain. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representation, dated 12.07.2019 to the respondents. Inspite of receipt of the said notice, no action is taken by the respondents. Hence,

¶9

¶10

MGR,J WP_20588_2020

¶11

assailing the inaction of the respondents to pay the compensation, this writ petition is filed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Government of Andhra Pradesh/APERC notified minimum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the bereaved family in case of nondepartmental fatal electrical accidents vide the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents Regulation, 2017 (Regulation No.2 of 2017). Therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to pay the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner for loss of his son as a result of electrocution. Learned counsel would also submit that the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the common High Court, in similar set of facts and circumstances, directed the electricity authorities to consider the case of the parties for payment of compensation. Non consideration of the representation of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia/compensation as per the Regulations and earlier orders of the High Court is illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

Learned sanding counsel submits that for quantifying the compensation, the petitioner has to approach the civil Court.

¶14

The said contention is untenable. For payment of ex-gratia and other benefits under the schemes, public law remedy is available before this Court.

¶15

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of both the counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court, in the interests of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, in terms of Regulation No.2 of 2017 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, for payment of ex-gratia, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

¶17

MGR,J WP_20588_2020

¶18

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall

¶19

be no order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶21

______________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶22