Disposed

P. Murugan, v. the Chairman

Madras HC17 Feb 2021WP(MD)/15200/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution sought Rs.10 Lakhs as compensation for the death of the petitioner's wife due to electrocution caused by a snapped overhead wire. The High Court disposed of the petition on the Government's undertaking to pay Rs.5 Lakhs, directing the petitioner to pursue further claims via civil court if dissatisfied.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to pay Rs.5,00,000 towards compensation within four weeks. The petitioner is advised to work out higher remedy via civil court.

P. Murugan, Vs the Chairman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15200 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.02.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶4

W.P(MD)No.15200 of 2011

P.Murugan

.. Petitioner

1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chenai.

¶9

2.The Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

3.The Executive Engineer (Supply) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs as compensation for the death of the petitioner's wife due to electrocution on failure to perform the duty of the respondent on 09.08.2011 and to pay the interest to till the realisation of the amount.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For Respondents : Mrs.Rajeswari,

¶13

for Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that his wife, while washing clothes at the public pathway in the Village, nearby electric pole, overhead wire got snapped and fallen on his wife and due to the electric shock, the petitioner's wife suffered injury and thereafter she succumbed to injury on 09.08.2011. An FIR came to be registered under Section 174 CrPC in Crime No.89 of 2011 and postmortem certificate establishes that the petitioner's wife died of electrocution due to the negligence of the respondents.

¶16

2.In the said circumstances, the writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.10 Lakhs. After issuance of notice, the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/3

¶18

W.P(MD)No.15200 of 2011

¶19

respondent has filed a counter affidavit and in paragraph 3 of the said counter affidavit it has been stated as follows:

¶20

“3.I humbly submit that the writ petitioner sought compensation for the death of his wife on 09.08.2011. The service line in S.C.No.027-013-102 broken due to old wire. The service line is four lines wire in which one line fell due to old wire it was seen by the deceased by touching the wire got electrocuted. The negligent act of the respondent can be pleaded and proved before the competent civil forum only. TANGEDCO by his proceedings dated 29.04.2013 granted ex-gratia under no fault liability(fatal) for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- it was enhanced by its proceedings dated 16.10.2019 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶21

3.The learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the Board is inclined to grant Rs.5,00,000/- compensation to the petitioner for his wife's death and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the offer and wants enhanced compensation, the petitioner can approach the Civil Court and quantify any higher amount that may be payable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

4.In view of the averments as contained in the counter affidavit, which is extracted supra and also the submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.

¶23

(i) the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) as compensation to the petitioner, after due verification, in terms of their undertaking given by the respondents, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

¶24

(ii) in case the petitioner is inclined to seek more compensation, it is upto him to work out his remedy in a manner known to law. No costs.

¶25

dsk

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P(MD)No.15200 of 2011

¶29

¶30

1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chenai.

¶31

2.The Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli District.

¶32

3.The Executive Engineer (Supply) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli District.

¶33

W.P(MD)No.15200 of 2011 17.02.2021

¶34

ES(CO) KK(09.03.2021) 3P 4C

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

3/3

P. Murugan, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Murugan, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.M.Chellapandi Poosari Vs the Fit Person/Deputy Commissioner

Deepak Kumar Vs The Tahsildar

Abina Shiny.R.S Vs The Bharathidasan University

Krishnaveni.M Vs the Director of School Education

Hari Krishnan.N Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Muthaiya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Represented by