Madras High Court
Minor.Pandikumar @ Muthupandi vs The Chairman on 18 December, 2014
Author: K.B.K.Vasuki
Bench: K.B.K.Vasuki
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P(MD)No.4050 of 2009 Minor.Pandikumar @ Muthupandi rep. By his mother and natural guardian Mrs.Panchu, W/o.Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.R.R. Building, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai West, Arasaradi, Madurai. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai. 4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Arasaradi, Madurai. 5.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Nagamalai Pudukkottai, Madurai. .. Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by way of compensation to the petitioner's minor son Pandikumar @ Muthupandi for the injuries caused to him due to electrocution. !For petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For respondents : Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha :ORDER
The writ petition for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs is filed on behalf of the minor son who sustained grievous injuries, leading to permanent disability, due to electrocution.
2.The minor by name Pandikumar @ Muthupandi, S/o.Kumar and Panju, then aged about 14 years, during 2007 studied in 6th standard. The petitioner is the resident of one Vadapalanji Village and there was one electric pole installed near Vadapalani Kanmoi for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the villages. The electric wire line between Pole 6 & 7 was lying on earth due to improper maintenance of the Board. As it was highly dangerous, the villagers complained about the same to the respondents 2 to 5 before 20.11.2007 and requested them to rectify the same, but no step was taken. According to the petitioner, on 01.12.2007 the minor petitioner went to Vadapalanji Kanmoi to answer the call of nature and he was electrocuted by the electricity passes through the electric line and sustained sever born injuries. Because of the injuries sustained by him, his all over body and also his penis was completely burned out and his son lost his virility inspite of medical treatment and the petitioner has, by attributing the cause of the accident due to the negligence on the part of the Electricity Board in maintaining electric line, wire, etc. in proper manner, claimed the amount of compensation by applying the principles of vicarious liability.
3.The claim was seriously opposed by the department mainly by denying any negligence on their part. According to the respondents, the electric line got snapped and fell on earth due to heavy wind and rain and the petitioner?s son ought to have avoided going to Kanmoi to attend his nature call. The respondent has, by denying the cause of the accident, questioned the maintainability of the writ petition.
DATED: 18.12.2014 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P(MD)No.4050 of 2009 Minor.Pandikumar @ Muthupandi rep. By his mother and natural guardian Mrs.Panchu, W/o.Kumar .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.R.R. Building, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai West, Arasaradi, Madurai.
3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Arasaradi, Madurai.
5.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Nagamalai Pudukkottai, Madurai. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by way of compensation to the petitioner's minor son Pandikumar @ Muthupandi for the injuries caused to him due to electrocution.
For petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For respondents : Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha ORDER
The writ petition for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs is filed on behalf of the minor son who sustained grievous injuries, leading to permanent disability, due to electrocution.
2.The minor by name Pandikumar @ Muthupandi, S/o.Kumar and Panju, then aged about 14 years, during 2007 studied in 6th standard. The petitioner is the resident of one Vadapalanji Village and there was one electric pole installed near Vadapalani Kanmoi for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the villages. The electric wire line between Pole 6 & 7 was lying on earth due to improper maintenance of the Board. As it was highly dangerous, the villagers complained about the same to the respondents 2 to 5 before 20.11.2007 and requested them to rectify the same, but no step was taken. According to the petitioner, on 01.12.2007 the minor petitioner went to Vadapalanji Kanmoi to answer the call of nature and he was electrocuted by the electricity passes through the electric line and sustained sever born injuries. Because of the injuries sustained by him, his all over body and also his penis was completely burned out and his son lost his virility inspite of medical treatment and the petitioner has, by attributing the cause of the accident due to the negligence on the part of the Electricity Board in maintaining electric line, wire, etc. in proper manner, claimed the amount of compensation by applying the principles of vicarious liability.
3.The claim was seriously opposed by the department mainly by denying any negligence on their part. According to the respondents, the electric line got snapped and fell on earth due to heavy wind and rain and the petitioner?s son ought to have avoided going to Kanmoi to attend his nature call. The respondent has, by denying the cause of the accident, questioned the maintainability of the writ petition.
4.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records.
5.The fact that the live electric wire got snapped and fell on earth on 20.11.2007 and was lying on earth on 01.12.2007 in the same condition and the petitioner?s minor son came in contact with the live electric wire lying on earth and was electrocuted and sustained sever injuries all over his body including his penis and inspite of his treatment, he was not cured, are not so seriously denied. As a matter of fact, this Court has, by order dated 05.11.2014, passed an interim order directing the Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, to constitute a medical board consisting of specialists to thoroughly examine the minor petitioner regarding the nature and extent of injuries and also quantum of the disability sustained by him and the minor petitioner was accordingly examined and he was found to have sustained deep born in Perineum, penis, lower abdomen, right shoulder and right parietal and temporal region of scalp. The Medical Board was of the opinion that the burn sustained are electrical burns and the glans, penis had gone for dry gangrene (partial auto amputation at penis) and all the wounds are grievous in nature and now patient needs surgery over the scalp. According to the Medical Board, the minor petitioner sustained 60% permanent disability.
6.According to the petitioner, the accident is only due to improper and poor maintenance of electric line and it is the specific case of the petitioner that inspite of the same being brought to the notice of the respondents, they failed to rectify the same. Though the respondents admitted that the electric line fell on earth on 30.11.2007 itself, they did not seem to have taken any steps to rectify it immediately. They sought to deny their liability herein only by saying that the minor petitioner ought not to have gone out to answer his nature call. In my considered view, such contention cannot be accepted because of the very fact that the respondents failed to carry out necessary safety measures and to take necessary action in restoring the electric line and the same would amount to negligence on the part of the officials in maintaining electric wire and poles, as such the respondents - TNEB is vicariously liable to answer the claim made by the petitioner herein. As the cause for the accident is apparently made out, the question of driving the petitioner to go to civil Court to prove the same does not arise herein and the claim for award of compensation is well maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7.Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Medical Board constituted specially for the purpose of going into the extent of disability of the minor petitioner has given a clear opinion that the disability is 60% and is permanent in nature. Though the nature of the injuries and the disability sustained by him may not have a serious bearing on his working and earning capacity, as the penis of the minor petitioner is seriously damaged, the petitioner is deprived of the future prospectus of getting married and the enjoyment of his marital pleasure. Further, in the cases of minors, the minor, due to deformity on his body, would likely to sustain more mental shock and pain and sufferings, and he is likely to face inconvenience, disappointment, etc. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 338 (SC) (Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another), the best part of his life is yet to come and the compensation to be awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which will offset the pain, shock, frustration inconvenience and discomfort arising out of disability.
While doing so, the Court must take note of his deprivation of ordinary pleasures associated with his life including that of marital pleasure.
8.Considering the factors as stated above, the Supreme Court is of the view that in the case of child victim, the appropriate compensation for disability should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages. The supreme Court has in the above case cited few cases, wherein the non pecuniary damages was awarded between Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/-. The Apex Court has also fixed the extent of non pecuniary damages on all heads in addition to the medical expenses, treatment, attendance, etc. according to the extent of the disability.
9.This Court, having regard to all the relevant factors involved in the present case and the nature and extent of the disability sustained by the minor petitioner, his age and deprivation of other pleasure and amenities, is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to get the following amount as compensation:
60% Disability - Rs.1,50,000/- Pain and sufferings - Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of marital status and pleasure and loss of amenities - Rs.2,00,000/- Medical and other charges - Rs 50,000/- ------------------ Rs.5,00,000/- ------------------
10.In the result, this writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as compensation for the minor son and the same is directed to be deposited into Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. On such deposit, the amount shall be invested in any one of the nationalized banks in fixed deposit and periodically extended until the victim attains majority and the natural guardian - mother is permitted to withdraw directly from the bank, the interest accrued on the same once in three months. No costs.
18.12.2014
Index : yes / No
Internet : yes / No
gcg
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
K.R.R. Building, 800 Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madurai West, Arasaradi,
Madurai.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
K.Pudur, Madurai.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Arasaradi, Madurai.
5.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Nagamalai Pudukkottai,
Madurai.
K.B.K.VASUKI, J.
gcg
W.P(MD).No.4050 of 2009
18.12.2014