Partly allowed

P.Gnana Sekhar, v. the Chairman

Madras HC27 Jun 2023WP(MD)/23991/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought compensation for the electrocution death of the petitioner's son. The Court directed the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation to pay Rs. 5 lakhs based on internal board proceedings, granting the petitioner liberty to approach civil courts for further claims.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent Board to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs within two weeks. Petitioner granted liberty to approach the civil court for further compensation.

P.Gnana Sekhar, Vs the Chairman — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.23991 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.23991 of 2016

¶7

1.P.Gnana Sekhar

¶8

2.Kamala ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs 1.The Chairman, TANGEDCO Ltd, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO Limited, Parvathipuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Junior Engineer, TANGEDCO Limited, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the petitioner's son namely G.Aswin due to electrocution.

¶11

1/5

¶12

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

¶13

WP(MD)No.23991 of 2016

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.T.Arul For Respondent : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan No.1 Standing Counsel

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner's son died due to electrocution in the year 2015. The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming compensation of Rs.15 Lakh for the death of his son.

¶17

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits the

¶18

petitioner's son died due to the act of the neighbour of the petitioner, who cut the tree, which fell on the electric live wire outside the road and consequently the electric wire fell on the petitioner's son and he succumbed.

¶19

Board submits that though the respondent Board is not

¶20

responsible for the death of the petitioners. However if

¶21

this Court directs, the respondent Board would consider the case of the petitioner as per the Board Proceedings dated 16.10.2019.

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

WP(MD)No.23991 of 2016

¶25

4.In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's son died at an young age and he was a bright student and if at the respondent Board grants compensation as per the Board Proceedings, Rs.5 Lakh would be granted, which is not appropriate and therefore, the petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the civil court and work out his remedy.

¶26

5.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials place on record.

¶27

6.The petitioner's son died due to electrocution on public road. Even assuming it is due to the negligence of the petitioner's neighbour or anybody else, the death has been caused due to the electrocution and therefore, the respondent Board is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent Board to pay compensation of Rs.5 Lakh as per the Board proceedings dated 16.10.2019 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court if

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

WP(MD)No.23991 of 2016

¶31

he seeks more compensation. If any suit is filed by the petitioner before the civil Court, it shall exclude the period of the writ petition before this Court for calculating limitation period, if any.

¶32

7.This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.

27.06.2023

dsk

1.The Chairman, TANGEDCO Ltd, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶37

2.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO Limited, Parvathipuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶38

3.The Junior Engineer, TANGEDCO Limited, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

WP(MD)No.23991 of 2016

¶42

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶43

dsk

¶44

WP(MD)No.23991 of 2016

¶45

27.06.2023

¶46

5/5

¶47

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

P.Gnana Sekhar, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Gnana Sekhar, 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

Kallavandan, Vs the District Revenue Officer

Manivel Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S. Ganesan Vs the Asst.Executive Engineer

Mohamed Ebunu(Died), Mutharrunnisa, Vs the District Legal Services Authority

T.A.G. Duraipandian Vs the Secretary

J.Soundrapandian, Vs the Secretary to Govt.