Disposed

Jeyalakshmi, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC12 Dec 2024WP(MD)/17159/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madarai Bench disposed of writ petition seeking mandamus for compensation for electrocution death. Court held accused building owner liable and petitioner to approach civil court for compensation with exclusion of pendency period from limitation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty to approach Civil Court for compensation; pendency of writ excluded in limitation calculation; no order as to costs.

Jeyalakshmi, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.17159 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.17159 of 2017

Jeyalakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.By its Secretary, Department of Energy, Fort St.George,

¶11

Chennai 600 009.

¶12

The Chairman, TANGEDCO, (Formerly Tamil Nadu Electricity Board), No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶13

The Commissioner, Corporation Of Chennai Ripon Buildings, Chennai 600 003.

¶14

The Inspector of Police, T-9 Pattabiram Police Station, Pattabiram, Chennai 600 072.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.04.2017 claiming

¶17

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

¶18

1/4

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.17159 of 2017

¶20

compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) for the death of petitioner's son Sakthi Mariappan, by electrocution.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai For Respondents : Mr.R.Sureshkumar (R1) Additional Government Pleader Mr.S.Deenadhayalan (R2) No appearance (R3) Ms.M.Aasha (R4) Government Advocate

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.04.2017, wherein he had sought for compensation for the death of his son, who died due to electrocution.

¶24

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and carefully perused the entire materials available on record.

¶25

3. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a fluctuation in the electrical line passing by the side, where the petitioner's son was working, which had caused the death.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.17159 of 2017

¶28

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the incident had occurred in a private building, for which the department could not be held responsible.

¶29

5. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has produced the charge sheet filed on the complaint with regard to the incident, which indicates that the building owner was responsible for the accident.

¶30

6. In such view of the matter, even if a direction is given to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, no fruitful results in favour of the petitioner could be made.

¶31

7. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate civil Court seeking compensation against the person, who is liable for the incident. If the petitioner approaches the appropriate civil Court, the period of pendency of the writ petition shall stand excluded while calculating the limitation period for initiating a suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

12.12.2024

¶33

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶34

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

¶35

3/4

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.17159 of 2017

¶37

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶38

¶39

TO:-

¶40

The Secretary, Department of Energy, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶41

The Inspector of Police, T-9 Pattabiram Police Station, Pattabiram, Chennai 600 072.

¶42

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.17159 of 2017

¶43

Dated 12.12.2024

¶44

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

¶45

4/4

Jeyalakshmi, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyalakshmi, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Lakshmi Vs the Joint Commissioner/

Balasubramaniyan Vs The Commissioner

M. Ramachandran Vs the District Collector

K.K.v.Annan Thiruvengada Chariyar Vs The Commissioner

Ns. Murugan Vs Thoothukudi City Municipal Corporation

R Ponvendhan Vs Thoothukudi City Municipal Corporation