Madras High Court
B.Saraladevi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 12 July, 2022
Author: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022
and 2424 and 2425 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 12.07.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
--
W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022
and
W.A.Nos.2424 and 2425 of 2021
and
C.M.P.Nos.15518 and 15522 of 2021
---
B.Saraladevi .. Appellant in W.A.No.1320 of 2022
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
Anna Malligai, Olimohamedpet,
Kanchipuram.
4. The Assistant Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Tiruthani. .. Respondents in W.A.No.1320 of 2022
Page No.1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022
and 2424 and 2425 of 2021
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
Anna Malligai, Olimohamedpet,
Kanchipuram.
3. The Assistant Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Tiruttani. .. Appellants in W.A.No.2424 of 2021
Vs.
1. B.Saraladevi
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Fort St.George, Chennai. .. Respondents in W.A.No.2424 of 2021
1. The Chairman,
TANGEDCO,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Olimohammadpettai,
Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
3. The Divisional Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Arakkonam Road,
Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District-631 209.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
TANGEDCO, M.P.S.Salai,
Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District-631 209.
Page No.2/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022
and 2424 and 2425 of 2021
5. The Junior Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Tiruttani Town-1,
Chennai Bypass Road,
Thirutani, Thiruvallur District. .. Appellants in W.A.No.2425 of 2021
Vs.
1. Smt.Shanthi
2. Shri Harini (minor, age 13 years)
3. Vasikaran (minor, age 12 years)
(Respondents 2 and 3 are minors,
represented by their mother
and natural guardian Smt.Shanthi
4. The Inspector of Police,
D.1, Tiruttani Police Station,
Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
5. Saravanan .. Respondents in W.A.No.2425 of 2021
Writ Appeal Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 of 2021, filed under Clause 15 of
the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.18628 of 2017, on the file of this Court.
Writ Appeal No.2425 of 2021 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ
Petition No.711 of 2018, on the file of this Court.
For appellant in W.A.No.1320 of 2022 : Mr.R.S.Anandan
For respondents in W.A.No.1320 of 2022: Mr.A.Selvendra, Spl.G.P. for R-1
M/s.Keerthana Shenoi for
Page No.3/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022
and 2424 and 2425 of 2021
Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh for RR-2 to 4
For appellant in W.A.No.2424 of 2022 : M/s.Keerthana Shenoi for
Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh
For respondents in W.A.No.2424 of 2021: Mr.R.S.Anandan for R-1
Mr.A.Selvendran, Spl.G.P. for R-2
For appellant in W.A.No.2425 of 2021 : M/s.Keerthana Shenoi for
Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh
For respondents in W.A.No.2425 of 2021 : Mr.S.Udayakumar for R-1
Mr.A.Selvendran, Spl.G.P. for R-4
No appearance for R-5
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Honourable Chief Justice) These three Writ Appeals involve one and the same issue. Two Writ Appeals are filed by the TANGEDCO (TNEB) and one by the individual. All the appeals are decided by this common judgment.
2. The main issue for our consideration is about the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compute the amount of compensation out of the fatal accident.
3. The issue aforesaid has been framed for the reason that two Writ Page No.4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 Petitions were filed to seek compensation arising out of a fatal accident, where two persons died. It was out of explosion of the transformer and, therefore, making an allegation of negligence in maintaining it, the compensation was claimed and granted by the learned Single Judge after computing the amount of compensation in reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, which is a case arising out of a motor accident.
4. One writ appeal has been preferred by the claimant finding compensation to be not appropriate. Two writ appeals have been preferred by TANGEDCO to challenge the same order. It is mainly on the ground that despite involvement of disputed questions of facts, the learned Single Judge passed the order to compute the compensation, which could have been made only in a Civil Suit to make a claim arising out of fatal accident, where all the factual issues could have been considered.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TANGEDCO submitted that though it was specifically averred in the counter affidavit that the negligence was on the part of those who died in the accident, the learned Single Judge did not discuss the issue raised by the TANGEDCO. The order was passed by the learned Page No.5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 Single Judge without discussion of any of the facts, but based on presumption. It was held that those standing in the bus stand suffered the accident due to explosion of the transformer, without recording the negligence of the TANGEDCO. It is more so when the TANGEDCO always put a board of “Danger” near the transformer, so that no-body may stand close to the transformer. However, ignoring the aforesaid, the deceased stood near-by and on account of the same, when the transformer exploded, they met with the accident. It was not due to the negligence on the part of the TANGEDCO so as to fasten them with the liability and this fact was narrated in the counter affidavit filed by the TANGEDCO, but the same has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. Till the Civil Suit is to be filed to seek determination of the issue about the negligence and even with regard to the claim of compensation, the TANGEDCO volunteered to pay Rs.2 lakhs, but that part was also ignored by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the appeal has been filed to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court to enter into the factual issues, that too, without discussing those facts. The prayer of the TANGEDCO is, accordingly, to set aside by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant has contested the appeal preferred by the TANGEDCO and submitted that the negligence on the part of the Page No.6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 TANGEDCO was found in maintenance of the transformer, which had resulted in the fatal accident, in which, two persons died. The fact regarding the accident was taken into consideration and therefore, applying the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Vema (supra), the compensation was determined, though the challenge to the compensation has been made by one claimant. To support the argument, the learned counsel for the claimant has cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746, and paragraphs 30 to 35, were referred to support his arguments and the same are quoted hereunder:
"30. On basis of the above conclusion, we have now to examine whether to seek the right of redressal under Article 32 of the Constitution, which is without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which may be lawfully available, extends merely to a declaration that there has been contravention and infringement of the guaranteed fundamental rights and rest content at that by relegating the party to seek relief through civil and criminal proceedings or can it go further and grant redress also by the only practicable form of redress — by awarding monetary damages for the infraction of the right to life.
31. It is axiomatic that convicts, prisoners or undertrials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such persons. It is an obligation of the State to ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with law, while the citizen is in its custody. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials or other prisoners in custody, except according to procedure established by law. There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life. His liberty is in the very nature of things circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement and therefore his interest in the limited liberty left to him is rather Page No.7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 precious. The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exceptions. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law. I agree with Brother Verma, J. that the defence of “sovereign immunity” in such cases is not available to the State and in fairness to Mr Altaf Ahmed it may be recorded that he raised no such defence either.
32. Adverting to the grant of relief to the heirs of a victim of custodial death for the infraction or invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious act of the State as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party. The citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the courts exercising writ jurisdiction. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have, therefore, to evolve ‘new tools’ to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law. While concluding his first Hamlyn Lecture in 1949 under the title “Freedom under the Law” Lord Denning in his own style warned:
“No one can suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do: and will not do things that they ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us what is the remedy? Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient, our procedure for preventing the abuse of power is not. Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for the winning of coal, so also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari, and actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age. They must be replaced by new and up-to date machinery, by declarations, injunctions and actions for negligence…. This is not the task for Parliament … the courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers of the executive lead to the welfare state; but abused they lead to a totalitarian state. None such must ever be allowed in this country.”
33. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the courts too much as protector and guarantor of the indefeasible rights of the citizens. The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social Page No.8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations.
34. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights.
Therefore, when the court moulds the relief by granting “compensation” in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making ‘monetary amends’ under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of ‘exemplary damages’ awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.
35. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law — through appropriate proceedings. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of Page No.9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible. The decisions of this Court in the line of cases starting with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798 : (1983) 3 SCR 508] granted monetary relief to the victims for deprivation of their fundamental rights in proceedings through petitions filed under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the rights available under the civil law to the aggrieved party where the courts found that grant of such relief was warranted. It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the courts have moulded the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. In doing so the courts take into account not only the interest of the applicant and the respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their public duties properly particularly where the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles apply and the courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self- restraint, lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law. Some of those situations have been identified by this Court in the cases referred to by Brother Verma, J."
7. Another judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the claimant is in the case of T.N.Electricity Board Vs. Sumathi, (2000) 4 SCC 543. Paragraph 10 thereof reads as under:
"10. In view of the clear proposition of law laid by this Court in Sukamani Das case [(1999) 7 SCC 298] when a disputed question of fact arises and there is clear denial of any tortious liability remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be proper. However, it cannot be understood as laying a law that in every case of tortious liability recourse must be had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Right of life is one of the basic human rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In U.P. State Coop. Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey [(1999) 1 SCC 741 : 1999 SCC (L&S) Page No.10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 389] where one of us (Wadhwa, J.) was a party, this Court after examining various decisions of the courts on the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution observed that the language of Article 226 of the Constitution does not admit of any limitation on the powers of the High Court for the exercise of jurisdiction thereunder though by various decisions of this Court with varying and divergent views, it has been held that jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised only when a body or authority, the decision of which is complained, was exercising its power in the discharge of public duty and that writ is a public law remedy. This Court then observed: (SCC pp. 758-59, para
27):
"[I]t may not be necessary to examine any further the question if Article 226 makes a divide between public law and private law. Prima facie from the language of Article 226, there does not appear to exist such a divide. To understand the explicit language of the article, it is not necessary for us to rely on the decision of English courts as rightly cautioned by the earlier Benches of this Court. It does appear to us that Article 226 while empowering the High Court for issue of orders or directions to any authority or person, does not make any such difference between public functions and private functions. It is not necessary for us in this case to go into this question as to what is the nature, scope and amplitude of the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. They are certainly founded on the English system of jurisprudence. Article 226 of the Constitution also speaks of directions and orders which can be issued to any person or authority including, in appropriate cases, any Government. Under clause (1) of Article 367, unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of the Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the legislature of the Dominion of India. ‘Person’ under Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act shall include any company, or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The Constitution is not a statute. It is a fountainhead of all the statutes. When the language of Article 226 is clear, we cannot put shackles on the High Courts to limit their jurisdiction by putting an interpretation on the words which would limit their jurisdiction. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be Page No.11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a company or a cooperative society or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. Right that is infringed may be under Part III of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him. But then the power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is so vast, this Court has laid down certain guidelines and self-imposed limitations have been put there subject to which the High Courts would exercise jurisdiction, but those guidelines cannot be mandatory in all circumstances. The High Court does not interfere when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available or when there is an established procedure to remedy a wrong or enforce a right. A party may not be allowed to bypass the normal channel of civil and criminal litigation. The High Court does not act like a proverbial ‘bull in a china shop’ in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226." "
8. It is stated that when it is proved that the accident occurred due to the explosion of the transformer, it infringes the right of the claimant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the learned Single Judge had rightly determined the issue of negligence and computed the amount of compensation, though on the lower side, and therefore, the appeal has been maintained.
9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
10. The facts on record show that Writ Petitions were filed by the Page No.12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 claimants to seek compensation on account of the death of two persons due to explosion of the transformer. It was stated to have occurred due to the negligence on the part of the TANGEDCO to maintain the transformer. The deceased standing in the bus stand, suffered injury and succumbed to death. Those facts were found acceptable by the learned Single Judge and, thus, the amount of compensation has been given.
11. To analyse the argument aforesaid, we need to refer a part of the counter affidavit filed by the TANGEDCO, where they have disputed their negligence. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter filed by the TANGEDCO are quoted hereunder:
"5. I respectfully submit that the area in and around the transformer structure is not having any bus stop or house, shop or any structure whatsoever. In the transformer itself it was painted that it is a danger area and even otherwise it is obvious that the place is not meant for any temporary or permanent stay by any person. While it is unfortunate that the first petitioner's husband and another (Thiru.Paulraj and Thiru.R.Boopalan) have met with an accident, it is submitted that had the said persons have not chatting underneath transformer which is a danger area, the first petitioner's husband and other person would not have met with the accident and consequently died. Therefore, the negligence of the said persons in venturing into the danger area and staying there only invited the accident.
6. I respectfully further submit that in this world it cannot be contend that the first petitioner's Page No.13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 husband was so illiterate and ignorant of the dangers involved in staying and cheating near a transformer which is danger area. Therefore the first petitioner's husband and another person are only negligent in spending their time in the day light underneath the transformer structure which is a danger area and as such the first petitioner cannot content that the respondents are negligent."
12. The facts recorded in the aforesaid counter affidavit show that there was no bus stand or bus shelter near the transformer where two persons were alleged to be standing at the time of explosion, which took place due to the weather condition and not because of the negligence. The contention of the TANGEDCO was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, as would be clear from the findings recorded therein. In fact, only one version of the claimant was accepted to be correct and accordingly, the amount of compensation was determined. It is ignoring that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not enter into the questions of facts, especially when there exists a serious dispute.
13. It was not a case where the negligence of the TANGEDCO was found proved on the face of it and, therefore, the compensation could not have been determined, rather it was disputed.
Page No.14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021
14. Accordingly, we need to analyse the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the claimant in regard to the jurisdiction of this Court in the Writ Petition preferred by the claimant to seek compensation, as otherwise the remedy lies before the Civil Court, where the issue of negligence and amount of compensation arising out of the fatal accident can be determined after considering the evidence.
15. The learned counsel for the claimant has referred to paragraphs 32 to 35 of the judgment in the case of Nilabati Behera (supra). These paragraphs show it to be a case of custodial death, and infringement of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In those circumstances, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the parties cannot always be relegated to the ordinary remedy of the Civil Suit to claim damages.
16. A decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141, was also referred, wherein it was held that where there is flagrant violation of fundamental rights, the remedy of Civil Suit need not be enforced.
17. The other judgment cited by the learned counsel for the claimant is in Page No.15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 the case of T.N.Electricity Board (supra), of which paragraph 10 has been referred. Therein also a finding has been recorded that where there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, there would be no bar for the Court to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
18. In view of the above, each case has to be analysed on its own facts, and if the negligence is proved on the face of it, then the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised, and therefore, we need to analyse the facts of the case on hand.
19. The Writ Petition was filed by the claimant to seek a claim of compensation alleging negligence on the part of the TANGEDCO in maintenance of the transformer which exploded on the date of accident. The aforesaid was refuted by the TANGEDCO, rather they have made allegation of negligence on the part of the deceased.
20. In view of the above, it is not such a case where negligence of the TANGEDCO can be held to have been proved on the face of the record. Page No.16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021
21. It is not in dispute that on the transformer there remains a “Danger” board and, therefore, nobody should stand close to the transformer. If somebody ignores it and stands nearby resulting in an accident, the issue of negligence is to be determined taking the overall facts into consideration. It may be a case of negligence on the part of the TANGEDCO in maintaining the transformer, or, if somebody is standing underneath the transformer, he can also be held negligent, or in the third situation, it can be a case of contributory negligence. In this case, it does not come out from records that the TANGEDCO was alone negligent in maintaining the transformer, rather proper explanation about the incident of explosion has been given. It is stated that in peak summers such explosion takes place and if a person stands underneath the transformer ignoring the “danger” sign board and suffers on account of that, the issue of negligence has to be decided taking the overall facts into consideration. The learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the overall facts into consideration while holding the TANGEDCO to be negligent for causing the accident.
22. The High Court can exercise jurisdiction to award compensation in cases where the negligence is on the face of it or is not disputed or denied by the other side and not in every case, otherwise the High Court would convert Page No.17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 itself into a civil court to examine and decide the question of fact, which may be of negligence or determination of compensation. It is more so, when a serious dispute is raised by the TANGEDCO about the existence of the bus stand near the transformer. The issue aforesaid has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge, despite specific averment made in the counter affidavit of the TANGEDCO. The decision was given by the learned Single Judge cursorily without taking into consideration the rival claims.
23. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the learned Single Judge ought not to have exercised his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, that too, without dealing with the contentions of the TANGEDCO/TNEB. We find reasons to cause interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Court should not have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather the parties should have been relegated to Civil Court for computation of the amount of compensation.
24. In view of the findings aforesaid, nothing would remain in the Writ Appeal preferred by the claimant to enhance the amount, rather that issue is kept open, and accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Page No.18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 Judge in both the Writ Petitions, are set aside, however, with liberty to the claimant to maintain and take appropriate remedy arising out of the accident. As per the policy of the TANGEDCO, the claimant would be entitled to seek compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the victim, as was applicable at the time of accident.
25. The Writ Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(M.N.B., C J) (N.M.,J) 12.07.2022 Index: Yes/no Speaking Order: Yes/no cs Page No.19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Anna Malligai, Olimohammedpet, Kanchipuram.
4. The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tiurthani.
5. The Divisional Engineer, TANGEDCO, Arakkonam Road, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District-631 209.
6. The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, M.P.S.Salai, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District-631 209.
7. The Junior Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tiruttani Town-1, Chennai Bypass Road, Thirutani, Thiruvallur District.
8. The Inspector of Police, D.1 Tiruttani Police Station, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
9. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and N.MALA, J cs W.A.Nos.1320 of 2022 and 2424 and 2425 of 2021 12.07.2022 Page No.21/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis