Allowed

Sivagurunathan v. the Chairman

Madras HC7 Sept 2023WP(MD)/1973/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking compensation for the death of a petitioner's son due to electrocution. Court allowed the petition and directed the Chairman, TANGEDCO to consider the claim in accordance with an internal resolution.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the resolution passed by TANGEDCO on 16.10.2019.

Sivagurunathan Vs the Chairman — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶7

1.Sivagurunathan 2.Amutharani ... Petitioners

¶8

¶9

1.The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶10

2.The Superintendeing Engineer, TANGEDCO, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶11

3.The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karaikudi Region, Sivagangai District.

¶12

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶13

5.The Inspector of Police, Devakottai Police Station,

¶14

1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶16

Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the Petitioners' son namely Senthoor who is aged about 20 years with subsequent interest to them forthwith.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sankara Pandian For R1 to R4 : Mr.S.Deenadayalan Standing Counsel For R5 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners' son, namely, Senthur aged about 20 years, after completing 12 th standard, with an ambition to serve in Indian Army has started his training by residing at Senthamil Complex, Silambani Oorani, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. On 25.09.2021 at about 12.00 p.m, while he was standing in the balcony of the said room slipped and touched the electric line, which

¶22

is passing through adjacent to the balcony, due to which, he

¶23

2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶25

sustained severe injuries and was admitted in the Government Hospital, Devakottai and died on 29.09.2021. With regard to this incident, a case has been registered by the Devekottai Town Police Station in Crime No.469 of 2021 under Section 174 of Cr.P.c., The petitioners have submitted a representation on 29.11.2021 seeking compensation for the death of their son. However, it was not considered by the respondents so far. Hence, this writ petition.

¶26

2.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that this occurrence had taken place in a private complex and there is no negligence on the the part of the TANGEDCO. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that a case has been registered in Crime No.469 of 2021 on the file of the Devakottai Police Station and investigation is yet to be completed. On the outcome of the investigation in Crime No.469 of 2021 alone, the respondent Board can find out the manner in which the accident took place.

¶27

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶29

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the

¶30

fifth respondent submits that a final report has already been filed by the respondent police in Crime No.469 of 2021, dated 21.10.2021 and submits that they have closed the First Information Report as

¶31

''further action dropped''. The final report reads as follows:-

¶32

''On 25.09.2021 at about 12.00 Noon, one Senthur along with his friends while standing in the balcony and talking in his mobile phone has slipped and touched the electric line, thereby, sustained injuries, admitted in a Government Hospital and died on 29.09.2021 at about 5.50 a.m. This incident has happened only due to electric shock.''

¶33

4.Post Mortem Certificate has also been enclosed along with the final report and on perusal, it reveals that the opinion of Doctor reads “the deceased would appear to have died of extensive superficial infected electrical burns of about 70% and its complication thereof”.

¶34

5.As per the available records, it appears that the petitioners' son died due to electrocution, while standing in the

¶35

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶37

balcony, when he touched the electric line, which is passing through adjacent to the balcony. It appears that the electric line, which is passing through was without any safety protection.

¶38

6.In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with the resolution passed by the TANGEDCO in (Per.)(FB) TANGEDCO Proceeding No.6, dated, 16.10.2019. No costs.

¶39

07.09.2023

¶40

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn

¶41

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶43

¶44

1.The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶45

2.The Superintendeing Engineer, TANGEDCO, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶46

3.The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karaikudi Region, Sivagangai District.

¶47

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶48

5.The Inspector of Police, Devakottai Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶49

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶51

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶52

vrn

¶53

Order made in W.P(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶54

07.09.2023

¶55

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sivagurunathan v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivagurunathan v. the Chairman

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

Joseph Ravikumar Vs the Thasildar

Ravichandran.a.P Vs the District Collector

Shanthi.S Vs the Tahsildar

Raghavan.R.K. Vs the Secretary to Government

Regina Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Babitha G Vs the Secretary