Madras High Court
Mrs.S.Manjula vs The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Tamil Nadu on 31 January, 2012
Author: K.N.Basha
Bench: K.N.Basha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.01.2012
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHA
W.P.No.21297 of 2009
1.Mrs.S.Manjula
2.Mast.S.Gunasekar (Minor)
rep. By Mother and Natural
Guardian Mrs.S.Manjula,
3.Mr.N.Kanniyappan
4.Desammal ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Chief Secretary Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Fort. St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Annasalai, Chennai-2.
3.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
4.The Executive Engineer (O&M)
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Pallipattu Division, Pallipattu,
Tiruvallur 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 compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) for the death of K.Suresh, who died due to electrocution on 10.07.2009 at Kakkalur Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Elayaraja
For Respondents : Ms.V.M.Velumani,
Spl. Government Pleader for R1 and R3
Mr.M.Varunkumar for R2 & R4
O R D E R
The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs for the death of K.Suresh, husband of the first petitioner herein, who died due to electrocution on 10.07.2009 at the agricultural field at Kakkalur Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased, the second petitioner is the minor son of the first petitioner and the petitioners 3 and 4 are the in-laws of the first petitioner. The husband of the first petitioner, namely, K.Suresh, was a farmer cultivating the lands located in Kakkalur Village, Pallipattu, Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The entire family members are solely dependant on the income derived from the yield of the agricultural land which was taken care by the deceased Suresh. The petitioners are not having any other source of income for their day-to-day livelihood.
3. On the fateful date of occurrence, i.e., on 10.07.2009, the said Suresh, husband of the first petitioner, went to the field for ploughing the land. There is a high voltage tower erected by the second respondent in the land where the said Suresh was cultivating and ploughing the land. The said high voltage tower is being supported by stay wires. At about 11.00 a.m on 10.07.2009, the bulls which were used for ploughing was electrocuted and fell down. The husband of the first petitioner, Suresh, went to the rescue of the bull by pulling the rope tied with the bull and as a result, he has also suffered electrocution. In view of the electrocution, one of the bull as well as the husband of the first petitioner,namely, Suresh, died.
4. The unfortunate incident has taken place only due to the lapse and carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board Officials by not properly maintaining the high voltage electricity tower. Soon after the occurrence, the Village Administrative Officer had preferred a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Podathurpet Police Station, Tiruvallur District. The F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.196/2009 under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Postmortem Certificate reveals that the said Suresh died due to electrocution.
5. The petitioners, who are the sole dependants and legal representatives of the deceased Suresh, sought for suitable compensation from the respondents. A written representation dated 03.09.2009 was also sent to the respondents. As there is no response, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court with the present writ petition with the above said prayer.
6. Mr.N.Elayaraja, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even as per the admitted version of the respondents, the deceased Suresh and the bull died only due to electrocution. It is contended that a complaint was preferred by the Village Administrative Officer and a Criminal Case was also registered. It is submitted that the postmortem certificate discloses that the death of the deceased Suresh is only due to electrocution. It is pointed out that even the respondents not denied the cause of the death, but only claimed that the deceased died due to his negligence and there is no negligence on the part of the Electricity Board Officials. It is further contended that Electricity Board Officials are having statutory obligation to maintain high tension towers, wires and stay rods and they have to provide safety devices to prevent electrocution. It is pointed out that as far as the case on hand is concerned, the authorities have not taken effective steps to provide safety measures by installing safety devices as contemplated under Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondents are liable to pay adequate compensation to the family of the victim.
7. Per contra, Mr.M.Varun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 contended that there is no lapse on the part of the Electricity Board Officials. It is contended that the occurrence took place only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased Suresh. It is further contended that high tension tower was properly maintained and periodically, wires and other apparatus including the tower were inspected by the Electricity Board Officials and there is no complaint of any untoward incident or electrocution at any point of time. It is submitted that as the bulls went nearer to the stay rod and dashed against the same, the wires could have been loosened and thereby, there might be electricity leakage, which resulted in the unfortunate incident. It is further submitted that the deceased Suresh was not in the field and he has come to the field and pulled the bull and thereby he has suffered electrocution. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, as disputed question of facts are involved in this matter as to how the occurrence took place, whether due to the negligence on the part of the Electricity Board Officials or due to the negligence on the part of the deceased Suresh. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the petitioners cannot claim compensation by way of filing a writ petition and it is for them to establish their right and the quantum has to be fixed for damages or loss of life, only by a competent Civil Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the authorities concerned. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that the petitioners have made a claim of huge amount of Rs.20 lakhs without any specific particulars regarding the income earned by the deceased Suresh and without disclosing any other particulars to substantiate their claim of compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. The learned Standing Counsel would also place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SDO, GRID Corporation of Orissa Limited and Others v. Timudu Oram reported in (2005) 6 SCC 156.
8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record.
9. This is a very unfortunate case wherein a four legs creature, namely, a bull, as well as one Suresh, husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner died due to electrocution due to the leakage of electricity through the wires fixed in the stay rods of the high tension tower erected in the agricultural field at the time of ploughing the field. The undisputed fact remains that even as per the admitted version of the respondents both the bull and the deceased Suresh died due to electrocution. The said factor is also substantiated in view of the F.I.R registered, due to the said unfortunate incident on 10.07.2009, as per Crime No.196/2009 under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is seen from the perusal of the said F.I.R that the unfortunate incident took place at 11.00 a.m on 10.07.2009 at the agricultural field of the first petitioner's husband.
10. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 took enormous pain to contend that there is no lapse or negligence on the part of the Electricity Board Officials and the deceased Suresh died only due to his negligence as he went and pulled the bull and thereby suffered electrocution, I am unable to countenance such contention. It is pertinent to note that in the F.I.R. registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by the Village Administrative Officer, who is an independent person, it is specifically stated that the unfortunate occurrence took place at 11.00 a.m on 10.07.2009 while the deceased Suresh was ploughing the land with the bulls and due to the leakage of the electricity supplied through the electricity stay wire, one of the bull suffered electrocution and when the deceased Suresh pulled the bull, he has also suffered electrocution and died. The perusal of the postmortem certificate would also reveal that the death of the deceased Suresh was due to electrocution. Therefore, in the case on hand, there are prima facie materials available on record to establish that the occurrence took place within the agricultural land during the course of ploughing the said agricultural land by the deceased Suresh with bulls and the death of the bull as well as the said Suresh was also due to electrocution as per the postmortem certificate.
11. The crux of the question involved in this matter is whether the deceased died due to his negligence or due to the negligence on the part of the Electricity Board Officials. At the risk of repetition, it is to be reiterated that as per the complaint given by the Village Administrative Officer resulting in the registration of the F.I.R in Crime No.196/2009, the occurrence took place in the agricultural field, that too, due to the leakage of electricity through the stay wires and the bull suffered electrocution and while the deceased went and pulled the bull in order to save the same, he has also suffered electrocution and died. The said factors have not been disputed by the respondents 2 and 4 in their counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter that high tension lines, holding poles were erected during the month of October 1970 in the agricultural land of the first petitioner's husband. It is claimed by the respondents 2 and 4 that the said electricity high tension lines, poles and wires were periodically inspected and it is stated in the counter that due to the recent monsoon and cyclone effects, the fixtures and fittings of the pole might have become loosened. However, they have stated in the counter that if there is any fault, the same could have been rectified by the Electricity Board Officials and the high tension line is not suffering from improper maintenance. I am unable to countenance such claim for the simple reason that if the said high tension lines were properly maintained, as the same was fixed as early as in the year 1970, the same could not have resulted in the leakage of electricity causing electrocution to the bull as well as to the deceased Suresh. It is also further categorically stated in para 9 of the counter affidavit that the bull which was ploughing land seems to have been driven very close to the stay rod and as such, the said rod was hit by the bull pulling the plough under the force of ploughing and during the process, the bulls might have fallen on the stay rod, which could have resulted in the leakage of current through the neutral and stay wire and caused electrocution. The said submission made in the counter affidavit is nothing but an outcome of their imagination. Even assuming that the occurrence could have taken place in such a manner, it is the paramount duty and responsibility of the Electricity Board Officials to take all precautionary and safety measures and it is their statutory obligation to prevent leakage of electricity resulting in electrocution.
12. At this juncture, it relevant to refer Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, which reads hereunder:
91.Safety and protective devices: (1) Every overhead line (not being suspended from a dead bearer wire not being covered with insulating material and not being a trolley wire) erected over any part of a street or other public place or in any factory or mine or on any consumer's premises shall be protected with device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks.
A cursory reading of the above said provision makes it crystal clear that it is the statutory obligation, duty and responsibility of the Electricity Board Officials to provide safety and protective devices for rendering the electricity live wire line harmless in case it breaks. The Electricity Board Officials should take care and caution in respect of laying, installing and maintaining the high tension tower, electricity wires by providing safety measures by installing devices approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it loosens or breaks. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the factual scenario as stated above, coupled with the non-provision of safety devices to protect the citizen from electrocution, makes it abundantly clear that the Electricity Board Officials have not complied with their statutory obligation as contemplated under Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that a prima facie case of negligence was clearly made out, on the basis of the materials placed before this Court, against the respondents 2 and 4, as pointed out by this Court earlier.
13. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent 2 and 4 vehemently contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the involvement of disputed facts. I am unable to countenance such contention for the simple reason that as it is already pointed out that there is no dispute in respect of the manner in which the occurrence took place on the fateful day i.e., on 10.07.2009, resulting in the death of a bull and a person, namely, K.Suresh, husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner and son of the petitioners 3 and 4, only due to electrocution, even as per the admitted version of the respondents 2 and 4 in their counter. It is to be reiterated that the occurrence took place even as per the admitted version of the respondents 2 and 4 only at the time of ploughing the land with the bulls in the field by the first petitioner's husband. The postmortem certificate also reveals that the death was only due to electrocution.
14. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SDO, GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram reported in 2005 (6) SCC 156. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision held that the disputed questions of fact could not be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court has not recorded any finding to the effect that the electricity board authorities were negligent in performance of their duty and further held that in view of the earlier dismissal of the suit, the subsequent writ petition would not be maintainable. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the decision relied by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 is not applicable to the facts of the instant case, as this Court already given a finding that the death of the deceased Suresh and the bull are only due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the Electricity Board Officials as they have not provided any safety measures by fixing safety devices as contemplated under Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956.
15. It is also relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in H.S.E.B. and Others v. Ram Nath and Others reported in (2004) 5 SCC 793. In that decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that no disputed questions of facts arose as there were no denials in the written statement that the wires were loose and drooping and confirmed the order of the High Court awarding compensation to the victim's family. The Hon'ble Apex Court ultimately held in that decision as hereunder:
6.The appellants are carrying on a business which is inherently dangerous. If a person were to come into contact with a high-tension wire, he is bound to receive serious injury and/or die. As they are carrying on a business which is inherently dangerous, the appellants would have to ensure that no injury results from their activities. If they find that unauthorized constructions have been put up close to their wires it is their duty to ensure that that construction is got demolished by moving the appropriate authorities and if necessary, by moving a court of law. Otherwise, they would take the consequences of their inaction. If there are complaints that these wires are drooping and almost touching houses, they have to ensure that the required distance is kept between the houses and the wires, even though the houses be unauthorized. As far as the case on hand is concerned, as already pointed out, there is no disputed question of fact involved.
16. A Division Bench of this Court (P.K.MISRA and S.RAJESWARAN, JJ) in W.P.No.5217 of 1999 (Parezade Mama v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Electricity Department and Others), 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 Ld., v. Best Roadways Limited, 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 resorted when there is a clear denial of tortious 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 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.
17. A learned Single Judge taken a similar view and awarded compensation in a case of electrocution death in Lilly Stanislaus v. Chairman, T.N.E.B, Chennai and Others reported in (2008) 3 MLJ 160.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.P., EB v. Shail Kumari reported in 2002 (2) SCC 162 has held as hereunder:
7.It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, in the decisions cited supra, are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in this case also, this Court has already held that the death of the bull as well as the deceased Suresh was caused due to electrocution and only due to the carelessness, recklessness and negligence on the part of the respondents 2 and 4, as they have not taken any safety measure by providing any safety device as contemplated under Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and as such, they are liable to compensate adequately to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Suresh.
19. Now coming to the question of quantum of compensation to be paid to the petitioners, certain factual aspects has to be borne in mind by this Court. It is pertinent to note that the deceased Suresh was the only breadwinner of the family consisting of the petitioners, who are the wife, son and parents of the deceased. The perusal of the postmortem certificate reveals that the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of the death due to electrocution. It is also not disputed that the deceased was an agriculturist owing a land and unless he work in the field, it is not possible to get yield from the field for meeting the day to-day family expenses.
20. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Grewal, M.S. & another v. Deep Chand Sood & others reported in 2002-1-L.W.491. That was a case wherein the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, granting the relief of compensation on the ground of death of the students while they were taken to the playground by the school authorities. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Article 226 can very well be invoked for granting the relief of compensation depending on the circumstances of each case, particularly, on the ground of negligence to take care of the students by the school authorities. It is worthwhile to refer certain portions of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as hereunder:
Be it placed on record that in assessing damages, all relevant materials should and ought always be placed before the Court so as to enable the Court to come to a conclusion in the matter of affectation of pecuniary benefit by reason of the unfortunate death. Though mathematical nicety is not required but a rough and ready estimate can be had from the records claiming damages since award of damages cannot be had without any material evidence: whereas one party is to be compensated, the other party is to compensate and as such there must always be some materials available therefor. It is not a fanciful item of compensation but it is on legitimate expectation of loss of pecuniary benefits.
(emphasis supplied by this Court) Negligence in common parlance means and implies failure to exercise due care expected for a reasonable prudent person. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act. Negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack of proper care in doing something; in short, it is want of attention and doing of something which is prudent and a reasonable man would not do (vide Black's Law Dictionary). Though sometimes, the word 'inadvertence' stands and is used as a synonym to negligence, but in effect negligence represents a state of mind which, however, is much serious in nature than mere inadvertence. There is thus existing a differentiation between the two expression whereas inadvertence is a milder form of negligence, 'negligence' by itself means and implies a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the very same decision, observed as hereunder:
This plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition though advanced at the initial stage of the submissions but subsequently the same was not pressed and as such, we need not detain ourselves on that score excepting however recording that the law courts exist for the society and they have an obligation to meet the social aspirations of citizens since law courts must also respond to the needs of the people.
Law Court will lost its efficacy if it cannot possibly respond to the need of the society technicalities there might be many, but the justice oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality since technicality cannot and ought not to outweigh the course of justice. The view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra makes it crystal clear that this Court cannot undertake the exercise of fixing the quantum of compensation by adopting mathematical calculations, however, this Court can very well arrive at the conclusion by fixing a reasonable amount as compensation to be paid to the petitioners by considering the prima facie materials available on record and by considering the undisputed facts of the case as pointed out earlier. The occurrence in this case has taken place on 10.07.2009 and the first petitioner is now struggling with her son for day-to-day maintenance and livelihood and the petitioners 3 and 4 are the aged parents of the deceased. The family also lost the bull used for ploughing the agricultural land. The petitioners have also undergone mental agony and torture all along, right from the date of the death of the only breadwinner of the family, namely, deceased K.Suresh. It is pertinent to note that the deceased K.Suresh was aged about 27 years and the family has lost the breadwinner at his very young age. It is seen that the deceased was a farmer cultivating the lands in his village and the entire family members are solely dependent on the income derived from the yield of the agricultural land which was taken care by the deceased Suresh. The family has also suffered loss of bull which was used for ploughing the field.
21. Considering the above factors, this Court is of the considered view that granting the relief of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the second respondent is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) with interest @ 9 % p.a from the date of the representation of the petitioners dated 03.09.2009 till the date of disbursement. It is made clear that out of the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest as above shall be paid to the petitioners 1 and 2 and the petitioners 3 and 4 should be paid each Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest as above. It is further made clear that the above said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
31.01.2012 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No jvm To
1.The Secretariat, The Chief Secretary Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort. St.George, Chennai.
K.N.BASHA, J.
jvm
2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Annasalai, Chennai-2.
3.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
4.The Executive Engineer (O&M) Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Pallipattu Division,Pallipattu, Tiruvallur District.
W.P.No.21297 of 200931.01.2012