BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/11/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD).No.6062 of 2005 1.Tmt.Guruvammal 2.Govidammal 3.Karuppasamy ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar. 2.G.Gopalsamy, S/o.Gopalasamy, Majapoo Street, The Junior Engineer, (Town West), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Srivilliputtur. 3.Krishnamoorthi, The foreman, Office of the Junior Engineer(Town West) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Srivilliputtur. 4.Gani, S/o.Mariappan, Indira Nagar, The Wireman, Office of the Junior Engineer(Town West) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Srivilliputtur. 5.The Junior Engineer (Town West), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Srivilliputtur. 6.O/o.The Junior Engineer (Town West), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Srivilliputtur. 7.The Wireman, O/o.The Junior Engineer (Town West), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Srivilliputtur. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation together with interest at 12% per annum from 13.05.2005 to the petitioners herein within a time to be stipulated. !For Petitioner ... Mr.Sivaji ^For Respondents ... Mr.M.Suresh Kumar for TNEB :ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking writ of
mandamus directing the respondents/TNEB to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as
compensation together with interest at 12% per annum from 13.05.2005 for death
of Late Velu on account of the electrocution caused by the live wire.
2. The 1st petitioner’s husband, Late Velu, was a night watchman working
at Jayanthi Gas Agency at Srivilliputtur and was getting a monthly salary of
Rs.2,000/- per month and in addition to that, he was also working as a load man
for taking the gas cylinders to the customers, by earning a sum of Rs.3,000/-
per month. Unfortunately, on 28.09.2003 at about 10 p.m., after visiting his
relative at Kottaipatti, while he was returning via. Singamada Street at
Srivilliputtur, he came in contact with a live wire left on the street and as a
result, he was died on the spot due to electrocution of the live wire, which has
not been maintained properly by the respondents-TNEB. Thereupon, a complaint
was lodged before the Srivilliputtur Town Police Station in Crime No.135 of
2004. After investigation, the police have filed a criminal case under Section
304-A of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Srivilliputtur, against
the respondents 2 to 4 in C.C.No.295 of 2004. Subsequently, the postmortem
certificate also reveals that the deceased Velu died on sudden cardiac arrest
due to high voltage electric shock. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased
Velu was died on account of electrocution caused by a live wire left unattended
due to carelessness by the respondents-TNEB.
3. Though the learned counsel for the respondents has urged before this
Court on the ground that the respondent cannot be held responsible, the learned
counsel for the petitioner relied with the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Parvathi Devi and Others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others
reported in (2000) 3 SCC 754, wherein it was held that if the death occurs on
account of the electrocution, the authorities concerned must be held responsible
for the death in question. Therefore, when the cause of the death of the first
petitioner’s husband Late Velu was established beyond the doubt that he had died
due to the electrocution, this Court proceeds to decide the quantum of
compensation.
4. Though the petitioners have made a prayer for payment of compensation
of Rs.5,00,000/- each to all the petitioners by way of compensation, this Court
is afraid of considering the same. However, he himself relied upon the judgment
of this Court reported in 2010 (1) CTC 33, wherein the learned single Judge of
this Court, has admitted the fact that there is no clear guidelines to arrive
the quantum of compensation, however, the learned single Judge resorting to
Motor Vehicles Act, preferred a method for determining the compensation like in
the accident case. While doing so, Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was
applied in that case and as a result, by applying the multiplier 18 and by
taking into account the age of the person as 30, the learned single Judge had
finally arrived at a compensation of Rs.5,17,000/- and directed the said amount
to be paid by the respondent in favour of the legal representatives of the
deceased person.
5. Therefore, this Court having accepted the fact that the 1st
petitioner’s husband died due to the electrocution and as per the Section 163-A
of the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the age of the deceased as 50 years at
the time of death, I feel that it would be appropriate to fix the multiplier of
13. Further, the 1st petitioner has submitted in the affidavit that the
deceased was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- as a night watchman at Jayanthi Gas
Agency at Srivilliputtur and that apart, it was mentioned that he had worked as
a loadman for taking the gas cylinders to the customers and for which, he was
earning Rs.3,000/- and all put together, it was mentioned that the deceased was
earning Rs.5,000/- per month. However, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has not produced any salary certificate as a proof of monthly income
for Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, it would be appropriate to fix the salary of the
deceased at Rs.3000/- per month as notional income and out of the said sum, if
1/3 rd is deducted i.e., Rs.1000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased,
the balance sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.3,000-1,000/-) would be the monthly
contribution to the family of the deceased and the annual income works out to
Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 12). As stated above, as per the Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, if multiplier 13 is adopted, the loss of income works out
to Rs.3,12,000/- (Rs.24,000 x 13).
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- is awarded as compensation and the
said amount shall be paid by TNEB within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, it will carry interest at the
rate of 12% on the said amount.
6. With the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed. No
Costs.
rkm
To
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Virudhunagar.
2.G.Gopalsamy,
S/o.Gopalasamy,
Majapoo Street,
The Junior Engineer, (Town West),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Srivilliputtur.
3.Krishnamoorthi,
The foreman,
Office of the Junior Engineer(Town West)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Srivilliputtur.
4.Gani, S/o.Mariappan,
Indira Nagar,
The Wireman,
Office of the Junior Engineer(Town West)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Srivilliputtur.
5.The Junior Engineer (Town West),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Srivilliputtur.
6.O/o.The Junior Engineer (Town West),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Srivilliputtur.
7.The Wireman,
O/o.The Junior Engineer (Town West),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Srivilliputtur.