Allowed

Asokan S. v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014WP(C)/3123/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an award from the Permanent Lok Adalath regarding electrocution death. The Court held the award is not appealable and enhancement is un криптованə. The writ was allowed directing the respondents to pay the award amount.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to make payment of the amounts covered under the Permanent Lok Adalath award within six weeks from receipt of judgment.

Asokan S. Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 3123 of 2014 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SRI.ASOKAN S., KOTTAKKAKATH PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM, PULAN P.O., KOTTARAKKARA - 691 531.

¶8

2. SMT.R.RAJI, W/O.ASOKAN.S., KOTTAKKAKATH PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM, PULAN P.O., KOTTARAKKARA - 691 531.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.UMA GOPINATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, KOTTARAKKARA - 691 531.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, KSEB BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

BY SMT.P.K.RADHIKA, SC BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

MBR/

¶16

WP(C).No. 3123 of 2014 (M)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF POSTMORTEM CERTIFICATE OF GANGAMOL P.M. NO.1611/2012 DATED 20/6/2012 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE, OF MEDICAL COLLEGE.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF GANGAMOL, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH BY KOTTARAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 28/6/2012.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 19/6/2012 FILED UNDER SECTION 154 OF CR.PC FILED BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS REGARDING ELECTROCUTION OF GANGAMOL APPEARING IN THE VARIOUS NEWS PAPERS ON 20/6/2012 INCLUDING THAT THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5: THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 18/8/2012 TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER KSEB, KOTTARAKKARA REQUESTING FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6: THE TRUE COPY OF TEH COMMUNCATION

¶25

NO.P.S9/P.U.B/3090/74/2012/994 FROM THE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, VYDHYTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18/8/2012, OF KSEB IN REPLY TO EXHIBIT P5 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MAR-BASELIOS ENGLISH MEDIUM L.P.SCHOOL, KOTTAPPURAM, KOTTARAKKARA BY THE HEADMISTRESS WHERE GANGAMMOL WAS STUDYING.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 12/11/2013 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE PERMANENT LAK ADALATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN O.P.428/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT R1(A) : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2012.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

MBR/

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶34

W.P.(c) No. 3123 OF 2014-M

¶35

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF JUNE, 2014.

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Petitioners' daughter, Gangamol R., aged 9 years who was studying in 4^th standard got electrocuted on 19-062012, allegedly due to negligence of the 1^st respondent. The petitioners approached the Permanent Lok Adalath claiming compensation under Section 22 A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Exhibit P8 award was passed finding that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/-. After giving credit to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by way of interim relief, the Permanent Lok Adalath directed the respondents to make payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,60,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realisation, within 2 months. It is made clear that, on failure to deposit the said amount the petitioners will be at liberty to recover it from the respondents by invoking Section 22 E (5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

¶38

W.P.(c) No.3123/2014

¶39

-2-

¶40

This writ petition is filed claiming that the respondent ought to have paid a reasonable compensation on the basis of the claim made for Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also alleged that the respondents have failed in effecting payment of the amount covered under Ext.P8 award. Inter alia, the petitioners seek for direction against 1^st respondent to maintain the electric line coming within his control properly and safely so as to prevent such incidents in future.

¶41

The petitioners cannot approach this court in a writ petition seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation fixed by the Permanent Lok Adalath under Section 22 A of the Act. There is no appeal provided against the award. As such this court in exercise of the constitutional power cannot venture upon any reappreciation of the evidence on record. A re-adjudication of the factual issues settled through the award, is not contemplated, unless the award is patently illegal or perverse, or the findings therein are against any statutory

¶42

W.P.(c) No.3123/2014

¶43

-3-

¶44

provisions. Hence the claim for enhancement of the quantum of compensation cannot be considered.

¶45

It is pointed out that the respondents have failed in making payment of the balance amount due in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P8 award. The petitioners have got an effective remedy of execution of the award, as contemplated under Section 22 E (5) of the Act.

¶46

However, the 2^nd respondent being a statutory body fully owned by the State Government is bound to take appropriate steps to comply with the award. Latches or negligence in this respect will amount to dereliction on the part of the administrative authority controlling affairs of the 2^nd respondent. Under such circumstances, it is only just and proper in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to make payment of the amounts due under Ext.P8 award at the earliest.

¶47

Therefore this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to make payment of the amounts

¶48

W.P.(c) No.3123/2014

¶49

-4-

¶50

covered under Ext.P8 award within a period of 6 weeks

¶51

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,

JUDGE.

AMG

True copy

P.A to Judge

Asokan S. v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asokan S. v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

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

Sukumaran C.N Vs Muhammed Safoorullah

Muhammed.T.P Vs Asst Executive Engineer

V.M. Nazar Vs Assistant Engineer

Sibi Chandran.P.C Vs K.G.Mohanlal IFS

Vinodan A.K Vs Prasanna Kumari

Tata Tele Services Ltd. Vs the Assistant Engineer, Kseb Electrical