Disposed

Bathini Naganna v. Southern Power Distribution Company of a.P.Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Nov 2020WP/20759/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 for non-payment of compensation for a fatal electric shock accident, the Court held that public law remedies exist for ex-gratia benefits. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case under the 2017 APERC Regulation for payment within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case under Regulation No.2 of 2017 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission for payment of ex-gratia within six weeks.

Bathini Naganna Vs Southern Power… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.20759 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 14.03.2019 as per A.P Gazette notification No.241, Date 29.05.2017, even after lapse of considerable time as illegal, arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and direct the respondents to dispose of the grievance of the petitioner in terms of orders dated 24.12.2012 issued in W.P.No.35215 of 2012 of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and to pay exgratia relief to the petitioner herein 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 14.03.2019, his son namely Bathini Naveen, met with fatal electric shock due to snapping of live electrical wire from the electrical pole on the bank of irrigation tank in the outskirts of the village and died instantaneously. The said accident is a non-departmental fatal accident. Police also registered a case in Crime No.83 of 2019, and conducted inquest. In the postmortem report, the medical officer opined that the cause of death is ‘electrocution’. 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 got issued a notice dated 18.05.2020 to the respondents. Inspite of receipt of the said notice, no action is taken by the respondents. Hence, assailing the inaction of the respondents to pay the compensation, this writ petition is filed.

¶9

¶10

MGR,J WP_20759_2020

¶11

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 case of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia/compensation as per the Regulations and earlier orders of the High Court is illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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 case of 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.

¶15

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

¶17

MGR,J WP_20759_2020

¶18

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

¶19

closed.

¶20

______________ M.GANGA RAO, J

09.11.2020 cbs

MGR,J WP_20759_2020

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶25

Writ Petition No.20759 of 2020

¶26

09.11.2020

¶27

cbs

Bathini Naganna v. Southern Power Distribution Company of a.P.Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathini Naganna v. Southern Power Distribution Company of a.P.Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mediboina Jagadeswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Narayanadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Apspdcl

P.Venkata Subba Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chintamani Peta Subba Narasimha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G Padmavathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Yarralagadda Siva Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh