Allowed

Mrs. P.Valarmathi, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Madras HC26 Apr 2022WP/26973/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the respondents for directing payment of compensation for the death of the petitioner's son due to electrocution. The Court held the respondents liable for negligence and directed them to pay Rs.5,00,000 along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to pay Rs.5,00,000 along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of accident.

Mrs. P.Valarmathi, Vs The Superintendent… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.26973 of 2014

¶6

P.Valarmathi ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electric Distribution & Production Board, Perambalur Electric District Circle, Perambalur.

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electric Distribution & Production Board,

¶10

Kallakurichi Road, Ariyalur – 621 704.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay Rs.20 Lakhs compensation for the petitioner son death by considering the petitioner representation dated 19.08.2014.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gokulakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.Abul Kalam Standing Counsel (TNEB)

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner for the death of the petitioner's son.

¶15

2.The petitioner would claim that she is the mother of the deceased Sathishkumar. According to her, her deceased son Sathishkumar was doing agricultural operations to eke out the livelihood and he was the only bread-winner of the family. It is alleged that, on 03.01.2014 at 07.00 a.m., her son

¶16

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

¶17

Sathishkumar went to sugarcane field for irrigating the crops, however, he did not return back. After search, they found that he directly came into contact with an electric transmission wire which had fallen down and died on the spot. They removed the body and sent the same for post-mortem. In this regard, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.4 of 2014 by the Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station. For the negligence of the respondents, the petitioner is entitled for compensation.

¶18

3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents/Electricity Board disputed the allegations made by the petitioner. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the negligence alleged against the respondents has not been established by the petitioner.

¶19

4.Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

It is seen that a criminal case in Crime No.4 of 2014 was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the father of the deceased viz., Pragalathan. In the F.I.R., it has been clearly stated that the deceased had directly come into contact with live wire and got injured on the right chest and right elbow and died on the spot. Postmortem certificate annexed in the typed set of papers shows that the deceased had suffered external injuries, which are mentioned hereunder:-

¶21

“A Burns charred wound of size about 15 x 20 cm present over the Right Lower Chest epigastiv area and underlying tissues and muscles charred.

¶22

Another Burnt and charred wound of size about 30 x 10 cm size present over the Right Elbow and arm. Underlying muscles end tissues and skin charred. Ribs Intact.”

¶23

6.Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has not proved the negligence, cannot be countenanced. In similar circumstances, in W.P.No.22135 of 2013, dated 16.11.2021, this Court has directed the Electricity Board to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the death due to electrocution and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-

¶24

“4.When the accident of electrocution is admitted, no further enquiry is required or evidences needs to be considered. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation as admissible under the scheme published by the Tamil Nadu

¶25

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

¶26

Electricity Board in Board proceedings. In the event of death on electrocution as per the scheme, the victim is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the said amount even as per the Board proceedings.

¶27

5.The respondent has stated that the petitioner has filed one more petition before the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner undertook that she cannot seek any other relief against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board before the State Human Rights Commission and in view of the fact she has to receive compensation in the present writ petition.

¶28

6.Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of death till the date of realisation. The respondent is directed to settle the compensation along with interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

7.Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.”

¶30

7.In the light of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The respondents shall pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

mkn

¶36

¶37

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electric Distribution & Production Board,

¶38

Perambalur Electric District Circle, Perambalur.

¶39

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

¶40

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electric Distribution & Production Board, Kallakurichi Road, Ariyalur – 621 704.

¶41

+1cc to Mr.R.Gokulakrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.28754

¶42

W.P.No.26973 of 2014

¶43

SSD(CO) SU(26/05/2022)

¶44

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

Mrs. P.Valarmathi, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. P.Valarmathi, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minor S.Ananda Balaji, Vs The Convener

M.Mujubur Rahman, Vs The Executive Engineer

Jayaraman Vs The Assistant Engineer

A.R.Prabagaran, Vs The Tahsildar

K.Chinnaraj Vs The Executive Engineer

Sai Vidyalaya Educational Vs State of Tamil Nadu