Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No.5229 of 1995.

(ix) In Nirmala Thirunavukkarasu Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, reported in 1997 L.W. 42, this Court after considering the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' held that the usual plea of `Act of God' or mechanical failure cannot be considered as a defence while deciding a case for compensation arising out of electrocution. In cases of negligence, relating to electrocution, it was held that in order to render justice to the parties, the general rules as to damages to be construed liberally and not with rigidity. It was also held that the Courts should take into consideration not allowing a calamity to turn into a windfall and the amount of compensation should be decided only with reference to pecuniary loss.

(xvi) In K.Sundari Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Department of Electricity, Chennai, (W.P.No.19668 of 1999, dated 15.04.2009), the case of the petitioner was that her husband was working as a civil contractor. While he was returning to his house, on the way, he came in contact with the live wire hanging from above snapped and fell on the street, and died on the spot, due to electrocution. The further case of the petitioner was that the second respondent department gave a police complaint and that the body of her husband was also subjected to postmortem examination. The opinion of the Doctor as per the postmortem certificate was that the deceased died due to electrocution. It was submitted that the live wire which fell on the street wherein, the occurrence was said to have taken place was under the care and maintenance of the department. She claimed compensation. No reply was given. Hence the writ petition. Reliance was placed on the Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") to the effect that it is the duty of the Electricity Board Officials to protect the every overhead line erected over any part of a street or other public place with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the electricity line harmless in case it breaks. It was also pointed out that there was absolutely no factual dispute in respect of the manner of occurrence, in which the husband of the petitioner died due to electrocution.

(xvii) In Rani Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of Electricity, Chennai, and seven others, (W.P(MD)No.7415 of 2007, dated 03.08.2010), the petitioner therein claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-

with interest @ 12% per annum for the period between 21.08.2001 to till the date of payment for the accidental death of the 1st petitioner's husband who died due to electrocution. A criminal case was registered. Opposing the relief sought for in the writ petition, the respondents 2 to 4 therein, contended that on 21.08.2001, a lorry with a heavy load and abnormal height has dragged the service connection of D.26 Palukal fed from Manoorkonam SS about 600 meters from the spot of accident and due to the abovesaid incident, the service was damaged and cut. In view of the same, the electric wire fell on the telephone wire at one end and got energised. It was the case of the claimants therein, that the deceased came in contact with a telephone wire which was in the air, muchless than a man's height from the ground, got electrocuted and died. Though the Board objected to the relief sought for in the writ petition on the ground that they were not negligent and hence not liable to pay compensation, this Court after considering Nilabati Behera Vs State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1960, C.Thekkamalai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2006 WLR 13, Lakshmana Naidu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2006 WLR 608, CSDO Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., TNEB Vs. Sumathi, reported in 2000 (4) SCC 543, rejected the objections of the board, as regards the maintainability of the writ petition and awarded compensation by applying multiplier method.

12. According to the petitioner, her husband as fisherman earned Rs.7,000/- per month. To maintain his wife and a child in the year 2006 and to meet out the expenditures towards food, shelter, clothing, health and such other incidental expenses, and also considering the prevailing rate of inflation, at that point of time, even a labourer, would have required a sum of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) per month, approximately. The petitioner has lost her husband and a child has lost the love and affection of the father. All the principles applicable to the case of Motor Vehicle Accidents, can also equally be applied to the case of electrocution. Certainly, for the negligence in not maintaining the overhead lines by the respondents, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, being the Master, is vicariously responsible.