BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/02/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.4030 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 Ponnu Sankan alias Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Trichirapalli Electricity Distribution Circle, Mannarpuram, Trichirapalli. 4.The Assistant Engineer, Thuvarankuruchi Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thuvarankuruchi. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay a sumo f Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation for the death of the petitioner's mother C.Nallammal due to electrocution. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Rahul ^For Respondent No.1 ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Government Advocate For Respondent 2to4 ... Mr.M.Suresh Kumar ******** :ORDER
******
The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents
to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of his
mother due to electrocution.
THE BACKGROUND FACTS:
2. The petitioner and his mother, by name Nallammal were proceeding
to Thuvarankuruchi from their Village on 9 March 2009 and their purpose was to
purchase household materials and clothes. After alighting from the bus, they
were coming out of Thuvarankuruchi bus stand by walk. At that point of time, the
overhead electric wire running across the road got snapped and fell on the neck
of his mother. Suddenly, she got electrocuted and fell down. Since the electric
steel wires circled around the neck of his mother, she sustained grievous injury
on her neck. The petitioner tried to rescue by pulling her. However, he was not
in a position to proceed further, as he would also be electrocuted. The mother
of the petitioner, after screaming and crying in front of his own eyes, died.
The electricity was thereafter switched off and the body of his mother was
removed for post-mortem.
3. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the Inspector of
Police, Thuvarankuruchi Police Station and a case in Crime No.85 of 2009 was
registered against the officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
4. According to the petitioner, his mother was electrocuted only due
to the negligence and carelessness of the officials of the fourth respondent.
The fourth respondent was not managing the electric line properly and that was
the sole reason for snapping the electric line.
5. The mother of the petitioner was aged 47 years. She was employed
as a construction worker earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day. She was survived by
three sons including the petitioner. The death of his mother caused immense pain
to the petitioner, besides perennial loss to the family. Therefore, the
petitioner was constrained to file the Writ Petition praying for an order to pay
compensation estimated at Rs.10,00,000/-.
THE DEFENCE:
6. The fourth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, disputed the
allegations regarding negligence. According to the fourth respondent, the Board
has been maintaining the electric line very regularly. The fourth respondent
contended that a political party has erected a flex board in the bus stand area
and due to heavy wind, the said advertisement board/flex board suddenly fell on
the electricity board lines passing through the said street. Accordingly, the
electrical wires snapped and the mother of the petitioner died due to
electrocution. The fourth respondent further contended that the negligence
cannot be attributed to them and the incident has happened, only because of
erection of flex board by a political party.
7. I have head the learned counsel for the parties.
ANALYSIS:
8. The facts that the mother of the petitioner died on 09.03.2009 on
account of electrocution and the instantaneous nature of death were all admitted
by the fourth respondent. The first information recorded by the Inspector of
Police, Thuvarankuruchi Police Station also shows that it was only on account of
the negligence of the fourth respondent that the incident has happened.
Therefore, the incident is admitted.
9. The next question is as to whether the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board was responsible for the incident in question.
10. The fourth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, contended that
the incident has happened only on account of erection of a flex board by a
political party. The said flex board fell on the electric lines passing through
the bus stand area and accordingly, the mother of the petitioner was
electrocuted.
11. The fourth respondent very clearly admitted the erection of a
flex board near the electric line. There is nothing in the counter-affidavit to
indicate as to when the flex board was erected. The first respondent has not
filed any counter in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in
support of the Writ Petition. The Electricity Board has got a duty to see that
no kind of erections are made near the supply line. The Board has got Field
Officers responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of the electric line. The
Electricity Board has employed Supervisors and Line Helpers only to see that the
electric lines are kept in proper condition. The incident in question has
happened in a Town. The fourth respondent has got a divisional circle office at
Thuvarankuruchi. Therefore, they cannot plead ignorance that they were not aware
of the erection of flex board near the line.
12. The Board cannot shirk their responsibility by accusing the
political party for having erected the flex board near the electric line. The
provisions of the Electricity Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder
contains detailed provisions about the erection of structures and the situation
of dangerous materials near the electric line. The Electricity Board is not
powerless in such situations. In case a political party or any other public
erects flex board and other materials near the electric line, it is the duty of
the Board to see that such structures are removed at the earliest point of time.
The line should be erected in such a way that it will not snap on account of any
external objects touch the line.
13. Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 contains provisions
relating to overhead lines. The said provision reads thus:
“68. Overhead lines.- (1) An overhead line shall, with prior
approval of the Appropriate Government, be installed or kept installed above
ground in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2).
(2) The provisions contained in sub-section (1) shall not apply-
(a) in relation to an electric line which has a nominal voltage not
exceeding 11 kilovolts and is used or intended to be used for supplying to a
single consumer;
(b) in relation to so much of an electric line as is or will be within
premises in the occupation or control of the person responsible for its
installation; or
(c) in such other cases, as may be prescribed.
(3) The Appropriate Government shall, while granting approval under sub-
section (1), impose such conditions (including conditions as to the ownership
and operation of the line) as appear to it to be necessary.
(4) The Appropriate Government may vary or revoke the approval at any time
after the end of such period as may be stipulated in the approval granted by it.
(5) Where any tree standing or lying near an overhead line or where any
structure or other object which has been placed or has fallen near an overhead
line subsequent to the placing of such line, interrupts or interferes with, or
is likely to interrupt or interfere with, the conveyance or transmission of
electricity or the accessibility of any works, an Executive Magistrate or
authority specified by the Appropriate Government may, on the application of the
licensee, cause the tree, structure or object to be removed or otherwise dealt
with as he or it thinks fit.
(6) When disposing of an application under sub-section (5), an Executive
Magistrate or authority specified under that sub-section shall, in the case of
any tree in existence before the placing of the overhead line, award to the
person interested in the tree such compensation as he thinks reasonable, and
such person may recover the same from the licensee.”
14. Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 also provides for
safety and protective devices. The said provision reads thus:
“91.Safety and protective devices.- (1) Every overhead line; (not being
suspended from a dead bearer wire and not being covered with insulating material
and not being a trolley-wire) erected over any part of street or other public
place or in any factory or mine or on any consumers’ premises shall be protected
with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically
harmless in case it breaks.
(2) An Inspector may by notice in writing require the owner of any such
overhead line wherever it may be erected to protect it in the manner specified
in sub-rule (1).”
15. Section 68 gives authority to a District Magistrate to remove
the trees, structures or objects placed near an overhead line. The Board should
be vigilant in the matter of maintenance of electric lines and they cannot be
heard to say that without their permission, political parties have erected flex
board and the incident has happened only because of the contact of such flex
boards with the electric line.
16. The negligence of the Electricity Board is writ large. Though
they have admitted that a political party has erected a flex board very near to
the line, they have not taken any action to remove the flex board. Therefore,
the Electricity Board cannot avoid the liability. The mother of the petitioner
died only on account of electrocution. It is not the responsibility of the
petitioner to prove as to how the electric line was snapped. The petitioner or
his mother had no control over the electrical system as well as the transmission
line. Therefore, in such circumstances, onus is heavy on the Electricity Board
to demonstrate that they were not responsible for the incident.
17. The materials available on record gives a clear indication that
the incident was purely on account of the negligence of the Electricity Board.
Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for award of compensation.
18. The next issue pertains to the assessment of compensation.
19. There are no fixed guidelines to assess compensation in a case
like this. However, the Courts are not helpless in such situations, in view of
sister enactments operating in the field of assessment of compensation.
20. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contains detailed provisions
regarding payment of compensation. Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act
contains structured formula for arriving at compensation involving motor
vehicles.
21. The mother of the petitioner was employed as a coolie. She was
aged about 47 years as on the date of her death.
22. The Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
contains details about the compensation payable in respect of those who had no
income prior to the accident. Even the income of non-earning person was
indicated at Rs.1,500/- per month. Since the deceased was a coolie, her income
has to be taken at Rs.36,000/- per year. The said amount has to be deducted by
1/3rd for her personal expenses. Therefore, the annual income, after deduction,
would be a sum of Rs.24,000/- per year. If we take the multiplier at 12, the
compensation would be a sum of Rs.2,88,000/-. The petitioner is also entitled to
a sum of Rs.2,000/- being the funeral expenses. Therefore, I am of the view
that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation.
23. In the result, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of
Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Nallammal. Such
payment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order with interest at 8% per annum from the date of
initiation of proceedings.
24. In the upshot, I allow the Writ Petition with cost quantified at
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
SML
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Energy Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Chairman,
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Trichirapalli Electricity Distribution Circle,
Mannarpuram,
Trichirapalli.
4.The Assistant Engineer,
Thuvarankuruchi Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Thuvarankuruchi.