Madras High Court
P.Paranthaman vs The Superintending Engineer on 12 April, 2022
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
WP.No.17987 of 2019
P.Paranthaman ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Udumalai,
Kongalnagaram, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) for the death of the son of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.B.Muralikrishnan
For Mr.S.Varanesh
For Respondents : Mr.Abul Kalam
Standing Counsel
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
ORDER
The petitioner is a daily wager. One of his two children, Dhinesh, who has studying in the 11th standard in the Government Higher Secondary School at Charipalayam had accompanied his relatives on 04.03.2018 for a painting job work. Unfortunately, there had been an accident at the venue and the petitioner's son had been electrocuted fatally.
2. According to the petitioner, the accident was caused by his son and the others who had been executing the work carrying an iron ladder that had come into contact with a three-phase electric wire causing the electrocution. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Komangalam Police Station and enquiry had been conducted by the Police Officer.
3. A report, entitled Parvai Mahazar, dated 04.03.2018 i.e. the date of incident, states that there were a total of 10 electrical lines at a height of 150 feet and the three-phase line was found carrying 433 volts. The petitioner alleges that there were several factors that had caused his son's death, such as the abnormally high voltage, the excessive number of lines and the fact that the lines were at a very low height, which is legally impermissible. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17987 OF 2019
4. He relies upon Rule 91 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (‘Rules’) that provides for safety and protective devices to be put in place such that an overhead line that breaks will be rendered harmless. Had only such device been in place, the electricity line would have merely broken upon coming into contact with the ladder, without any adverse consequences, as have transpired.
5. Thus, and even assuming that there was some laxity on the part of the deceased or the co-workers it does not absolve the authorities from their responsibility. Rule 91 is extracted below:
‘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). 1[(3) The owner of every high and extra-high voltage overhead line shall make adequate arrangements to the satisfaction of the Inspector to prevent unauthorised persons from ascending any of the supports of such overhead lines which can be easily climbed upon without the help of a ladder or special appliances. Rails, reinforced cement concrete poles and pre-stressed cement concrete poles without steps, tubular poles, wooden supports without steps, I-sections and 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17987 OF 2019 channels shall be deemed as supports which cannot be easily climbed upon for the purpose of this rule.]’
6. The petitioner relies upon decisions of this Court in S.Rukmani vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, WP.No.40171 of 2015 dated 20.01.2016, S.Manjula vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu (2012 2 CWC 552), The Superintending Engineer vs. T.Ranganathan and others (2017 3 CTC 703), Thangavel and another vs. Superintending Engineer and others (2017 2 MWN (Civil) 400) in support of his submissions.
7. The child was only 14 years old and his demise is solely attributable to the negligence of the respondents and their non-adherence in complying with the Rules, and ensuring the safety of the service connection, he argues.
8.Learned Panel Counsel for the respondents would point out that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was not arrayed as an accused in the criminal complaint in which only the contractor, who had engaged the services of the labour, had been arrayed. That apart, he would emphasize upon the fact that the incident was caused solely by the negligence of the deceased.
4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17987 OF 2019
9. There is no dispute in that, the child had been carrying a tall iron ladder which had come into contact with the electrical wire. However, as petitioner contends, any unintended error on the part of the child would not absolve the respondents from the strict liability cast upon them under the Rules to render safe the equipment in use on city/village roads and areas.
10. In order to better understand the application of Rule 91 and methodology of working of the protective devices, a request was made to Mr.Kalam that a technical expert from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board be deputed to appear before the Court and explain the application of the safety devises contemplated under Rule 91.
11. I am anguished to state that there has been no semblance of an explanation or iota of instruction in this regard. No officer was even present on the date of hearing as initially directed, that is, 02.03.2022 and it was only when the direction was reiterated on 09.03.2022 that an officer even deigned to appear. He was however utterly incompetent in explaining to the Court any aspect of the matter, let alone the application of Rule 91 and safety measures provided thereunder.
5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17987 OF 2019
12. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parezade Mama vs. State of Tamilnadu (WP.No.5217 of 1999) had considered a similar issue holding that the family of the victims were entitled to compensation. At paragraphs 16 and 17 they state as follows:
‘16.A Division Bench of this Court (P.K.Misra & S.Rajeswaran, JJ) in Parezade Mama v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Elecricity Department, WP.No.5217 of 1999, while dealing with the case of death of the mother and father of the children, who died when the children playing in a lodge were to touch the running overhead high tension line approximately 3 feet from the balcony of the lodge and the parents while attempted to rescue the children, by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. V. Best Roadways Ltd., 2000 (4) SCC 553, held that on the fact of the conduct of the public authority, there is infringement of Article 21, and there is no bar for the High Court to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by granting necessary damages, as follows:
17.It is true that Writ Petitions for claiming damages cannot be restored when there is a clear denial of tortuous liability. At the same time when the negligence is per se visible and it infringes Article 21, relief claiming damages could be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
18.In Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. V. Best Roadways Ltd., 2000 (4) SCC 553, the Hon’ble Supreme Court no doubt held that the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Court cannot grant compensation to the family of victim who died by electrocution. However, in the very same 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17987 OF 2019 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there, it cannot be said there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.’
13. Mr.Kalam denies liability to compensation as the officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board have not been implicated in the criminal case. This arguments is rejected in the light of the fact that the child admittedly, succumbed to electrocution on 14.03.2018. The mahazar report extracted below makes it clear that there were ten electric lines placed in close proximity, all at a height of 150 metres. Thus, negligence on the part of the respondents is clearly established.
14. The Parvai Mahazar is extracted below:
‘04/03/2018?k; njjp khiy 19/45 kzpf;F nrhk';fyk; fhty; epiya Fw;w vz; 51-18 u/s 337. 304(A) IPC kpd;rhuk; gha;e;J kuzk; tHf;fpd; rk;gt ,lkhd g{rhhpg;gl;o md;id ru!;tjp onulh;!; gpd;g[wk; rk;gt ,lj;jpy; itj;J rhl;rp gue;jhkd; milahsk; fhl;oa ,lj;jpy; rhl;rpfs; (1) ma;ag;gh taJ 29 S/o. bts;sp';fphp. Rpd;dbjhg;gk;gl;o. befkk;. (2) uh$; taJ 67 S/o. fe;jrhkp. rpd;d bjhg;gk;gl;o. befkk;. vd;gth;fs; Kd;dpiyapy; nrhk';fyk; fhty; epiya Ma;thsh; mk;rntzp Mfpa vd;dhy; rk;gt ,lj;jpy; itj;j vGjp jahh; bra;j ghh;it kf$h;/ rk;gt ,lkhdJ fhty; epiyaj;jpy; ,Ue;J 8 Km tlnkw;nf cs;sJ/ rk;gt ,lk; g{rhhpg;gl;oapy; bghs;shr;rp to jhuhg[uk; nuhl;od; tlg[wk; bjw;F ghh;j;j epiyapy; cs;s md;id ru!;tjp onulh;!; filapd; gpd;gf;fk; cs;s fhyp ,lj;jpy; ele;J cs;sJ/ rk;gt ,lj;jpy; KUfd;. b$af;Fkhh; bjd;de;njhg;g[ mjd; bjd;nfhl;oy; fPH;jsk;. Nky;jsk; ,Ujsk; cs;sJ/ rk;gt ,lj;jpy; fl;olj;jpw;F tlf;nf 8 mo J}uj;jpy; xU kpd; tHpj;jlk; cs;sJ/ kpd;tHpjlj;jpy; nkny 3 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17987 OF 2019 fk;gpfs; mjw;F fPH; 4 fk;gpfs; mjw;F fPH; 4 fk;gpfs; vd;W bry;fpwJ/ rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F tlnkw;F 150 mo J}uj;jpy; kzpfz;ld; tPLk; 80 mo J}uj;jpy; xU fhh; brl;L tlf;nf 60 mo J}uj;jpy; g";R FnlhDk; tlfpHf;nf 75 moapy; xU kpd;fk;gKk; fpHf;nf 30 mo J}uj;jpy; 344010598 TF IV or vd;w kPl;lh; ghf;Rk; bjd;fpHf;nf 40 mo J}uj;jpy; NGM 96 vd;;w kpd;fk;gk; cs;sJ/ rk;gt ,lj;jpy; Rkhh; 20 mo J}uj;jpy;
kpd; tHpj;jlk; cs;sJ/ rk;gtj;jpy; gad;gLj;jpa ,Uk;g[ Vzpa[k;. xU fapWk; fplf;fpwJ/ m';F fplf;Fk; bghUs;fs; ifg;gw;Wjy; kf$hpy; ifg;gw;wg;gLk;/’
15. The arrayal, or otherwise, of the TNEB officials in the criminal case, is thus irrelevant to the issue of compensation as their negligence and their role in the child’s demise is clear, categoric and undeniable. The Parvai Mahazar provides for a record of the events by the police authorities. Nothing in the counter affidavits or even in the oral submissions, contradicts any of the findings contained therein. Thus, and on the admitted facts as have revealed themselves to this Court, I am of the categoric view that the respondents have been grossly negligence in not ensuring the safety of the overhead wires in terms of Rule 91 of the Rules.
16. Board Proceedings in B.P.No.6 dated 16.10.2019 quantifies compensation payable by the Electricity Board in various situations, including on death of a person, if attributable to negligence on the part of the Tamil Nadu 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17987 OF 2019 Electricity Board, at a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The relevant portion of the Proceedings read thus:
‘Accident – Compensation payable by TANGEDCO in cases of Fatal/Non- Fatal, Nondepartmental, Mechanical/Electrical accidents to human beings/animals – Enhancement of payment of compensation - Orders – Issued.
(Administrative Branch) (Per.) (FB) TANGEDCO Proceedings No.6 Dated 16 th October 2019.
Purattasi-29, Vikari Varudam, Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2050.
READ:
1. (Per.) (FB) TANGEDCO Proceedings No.5, Dated 29.04.2013.
2. Extract from the Minutes of 90th Board Meeting of the TANGEDCO held on 30.09.2019.
---
PROCEEDINGS In modification of the orders issued in the B.P. cited, the TANGEDCO directs that the exgratia payment payable on compassionate grounds in respect of Fatal/Non-fatal, Non-departmental, Mechanical/Electrical accidents to human beings/animals is enhanced as detailed below:-
Sl.No Mode of Accident Existing Enhanced Competent . Authority 1 For Fatal Rs.2,00,00 Rs.5,00,000 0/- /-
2 For No-Fatal Rs.1,00,00 Rs.2,00,000 Chief
0/- /- Engineer/Pe
a) Loss of two
rsonnel
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17987 OF 2019
limgs or two Rs.1,00,000
eyes /-
b) Loss of one
Limb or one eye
3 Animals Rs.10,000/ Rs.25,000/-
-
(Cow/Buffalow/Bullock
)
2. The above enhanced rates of compensation shall be paid to the victims on incidents reported on or after 29.07.2019. Previous closed files need not be reopened.
(By Order of the Board of TANGEDCO) A.Ashok Kumar, Chief Engineer/Personnel.
*** TANGEDCO – Bonus and Ex-gratia to Workmen of TANGEDCO or the year 2018-2019 - Orders – Issued.
(Secretariat Branch) (Per.) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No.189 Dated 16th October 2019.
Purattasi-29, Vikari
Varudam,
Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2050.
READ:
i) (Per.) FB TANGEDCO Proceedings No.9, (SB) Dated 02.03.2018. 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17987 OF 2019
ii) G.O.Ms.No.302, Finance (BPE) Department, Dated 26.09.2019.
---
PROCEEDINGS The quantum of Bonus and Ex-gratia payable for the financial year 2018-2019 to the Workmen of the TANGEDCO covered by the Wage Settlement has been considered in consultaion with Government. The ceiling limit for Rs.3,500/- payment of Bonus and Ex-gratia has been enhanced to Rs.7,000/- as per the Revised Bonus Act 2015. In the reference second cited, the Government have accorded sanction for payment of Bonus and Ex-gratia to the employees of the TANGEDCO. The Government of Tamil Nadu has announced for payment of Bonus and Ex-gratia to the eligible employees of TANGEDCO.’
17. In my considered view, the aforesaid Proceedings would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in light of the clear negligence established on the part of the respondents. Mandamus as sought for is thus issued, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date of issue of a copy of this order. Court makes it clear that the compensation ordered in this matter would no bearing in the pending criminal case.
18.A direction is also issued to the concerned authorities to ensure that there is strict adherence to the requirements Rule 91 within a period of three months 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17987 OF 2019 from date of uploading of an order in the official portal of the High Court. This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
12.04.2022 vs Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order To
1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore District.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Udumalai, Kongalnagaram, Coimbatore District.
12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17987 OF 2019 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
vs W.P.No.17987 of 2019 12.04.2022 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis