BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28/10/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.1020 of 2007 1.G. Karupiah 2.Seetha Lakshmi ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-09. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Electricity Avenue, 300, Anna Salai, Chennai-02. 3.The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Electricity Avenue, 300, Anna Salai, Chennai-02. 4.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the petitioners by way of compensation for the death of Mrs. Veerayeeammal, who is the mother of the petitioners herein, who lost her life due to electrocution. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.Marimuthu ^For Respondents No.1 ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy, Special Government Pleader For respondents 2 to 4... Mr.Suresh Kumar :ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The petitioners are the legal heirs of Mrs.Veerayeeammal, who filed
this writ petition, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each for the death of
their mother, Mrs.Veerayeeammal, due to electrocution .
3.The specific case of the petitioners is that on 17.05.2005, when their
mother, Mrs.Veerayeeammal was working in the field of one Mr.Rajagopal along
with one another woman viz., Mrs.Mariammal, the electric over head wire snapped
and fell on the earth and it had also fallen on the petitioners’ mother and she
was electrocuted. Despite, best treatment given in the Government Rajaji
Hospital, Madurai, she died on 18.05.2005. The petitioners contended that the
accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the respondents in not
keeping the electric lines in proper safety form and the respondents failed to
take necessary precautions, safety and security measures.
4.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board filed the counter affidavit admitting
that the said Mrs.Veerayeeammal, died due to electrocution, while she was
working in the cotton crop field at Chathirareddiyarpatti village, Virudhunagar
District, but pleaded that she got electrocuted due to her negligence.
5.It is further submitted by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that they
are properly maintaining the electric lines and the deceased alone was
responsible for the accident and hence, they are not liable. Further, they also
questioned the maintainability of the writ petition for claiming compensation
and according to the respondents, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners are not entitled to file the writ petition for claiming
compensation.
6.During the course of argument, Mr.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent 2 to 4 submitted that the writ petition is not
maintainable as disputed facts are involved in this case and therefore, as per
the judgment reported in 2000(1)SCC 543 and 2005(6) SCC page 156, the Court
should not entertain the writ petition and ought to have dismissed the same.
7.On the other-hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the writ petition is maintainable and the facts are not disputed
and in similar cases, the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court have held that
the writ petition is maintainable.
8.Before going into the issue, whether the writ petition is maintainable
or not, it is better to look into the facts involved in this case. It is
admitted that the deceased was working in the cotton field on the date of
accident i.e. on 17.05.2005, and died on 18.05.2005 in the Rajaji Government
Hospital, Madurai.
9.It is seen from the FIR, which was given by the deceased that at about
8.20 A.M, while she was plugging the cotton, she met with an accident by coming
into contact with live wire, which was hanging in a low position in the field
and she was thrown away and sustained injuries all over the body. The post-
mortem certificate also proves that the deceased died of extensive burn injuries
of about 90%.
10.Therefore, it is seen from the F.I.R and post-mortem report that the
deceased died due to electrocution and from the statement of the deceased made
in the F.I.R the electric over head lines were found hanging in a low position
and she accidentally came into conduct with the overhead wire and as a result of
that she was thrown away. From this, it is made clear that the electric over
head wires were not fixed in a position beyond the reach of the human being and
the over head wires were loosely fitted so as to make it possible for any person
to touch the wire either wantonly or accidently.
11.In the counter statement, the respondents only stated that the deceased
invited the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the Electricity
Board. Though, in the writ petition, the Electricity Board alleged that the
eclectic wire had fallen on the head of the deceased, it is seen from the FIR
that the wire were hanging in a low position and the deceased came into conduct
with the overhead wire accidentally. Therefore, it is proved by the petitioners
that the wires were not properly maintained by the Electricity Board and as a
result of that, the deceased came into conduct with the over head line and got
electrocuted.
12.At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 91 of the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Rules. Rule 91 deals with safety and protective devices: Every over
head electric wires carrying heavy load of electricity are highly dangerous.
Great care and caution are expected in laying, installing and maintaining over
head lines by the Board. The measures for protecting over head lines are
prescribed in Rule 91. Every over head line, which is not covered with
insulating material and which is erected over any part of a street be protected
with device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically
harmless in case it breaks. The over-head line in the deceased farm snapped and
fell down and continued to be alive. In the absence of any proof that there had
been no negligence or carelessness in installation and maintenance of the
transmission lines over the deceased’s form. it must be held that the accident
happened because of negligence of the Board [A.I.R.1984 Madras 201 in the case
of Nirmala vs.T.N. Electricity Board].
13.It is stated that every overhead line erected over any part of a street
or other public places shall be protected with device approved by the Inspector,
for rendering the line electrically harmless, in case it breads.
14.As stated supra, in this case, the over head line was found hanging
within the reach of a person and had it been fitted properly beyond the reach of
the person, the accident could not have happened. Further when a person came
into contact with the over head wire accidentaly negligence can be presumed
against the Electricity Board as it is the duty of the Electricity Board to lay
the overhead line beyond the reach of any person.
15.Recently, this court has held in the case reported in 2008(4) LW 289 in
the matter of Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Lalitha & two others ,
the Board is liable to pay the compensation in such cases, on the basis of the
Rule 91 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Rule 1956.
16.According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this
court has no jurisdiction to entertain such cases and the negligence has to be
decided in a court of law by adducing evidence and such disputed facts cannot be
entertained by this court.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2000(4) SCC 543, in the case of Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board vs. Sumathi and others and in 2005(6) SCC 156 in the case
of SDO, GRID CORPORATION OF ORRISA LOTD AND OTHERS vs. TIMUDU ORAM. No-doubt, in
those two cases, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that in the cases of
disputed facts, the court should not have entertained the writ petition.
18.But in the very same judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court has also
held that when there is no dispute regarding the manner of extent or negligence,
the writ petition is maintainable. Further, the judgment reported in 2000(3)
SCC 754 in the case of Parvathi Devi and others vs. Commissioner of Police,Delhi
and others, it was held that once it is established that the death occurred on
account of electrocution while walking on the road, necessarily the authorities
must be held to be negligent and therefore, in the case in hand, it would be
NDMC who would be responsible for the death in question. Similarly, in the cases
reported in 2002(2)MLJ9 (S.C) in the case of M.P.Electricity Board vs. Shail
Kumari and others, 2008(4)L.W.289 in the case of The Chairman,Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board, Madras-2 and one another vs. Mrs.Lalitha and two others and
2008(3)MLJ 160 in the case of Lilly Stanislaus vs. Chairman, T.N.E.B.,Chennai
and others, the Honourable Supreme Court and our Honourable High Court after
elaborately discussing the strict liability theory held that the writ petition
is maintainable. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the writ
petition is maintainable and the respondents are liable to pay compensation.
19.The next question that arises for consideration is what would be the
amount of compensation that can be awarded by the respondents.
20.It is seen from the FIR that the deceased was working as agricultural
coolie and she was aged about 53 years. As an agricultural coolie, the decease
would have earned Rs.1,500/- per month and she would have a life span, even
according to the petitioners for 10 more years. Hence, after deducting 1/3rd
towards the personal expenses, the deceased would have contributed Rs.1,000/-
per month for her family and hence, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- would be the
just and proper compensation that can be awarded in this case.
21.Hence, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to pay
Rs.1 lac to the petitioners as compensation for the death of their mother,
within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the
order, failing which the respondents are directed to pay interest at 6% from the
date of date of the accident. No costs.
er
To,
1.The Secretary, Public Works Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-09.
2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Electricity Avenue, 300, Anna Salai, Chennai-02.
3.The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Electricity Avenue, 300, Anna Salai, Chennai-02.
4.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Virudhunagar District.