C DHANALAKSHMI Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the second respondent dated 4.9.2002, by which, the second respondent has rejected the petitioner's representation claiming compensation for the death of her husband due to electrocution, which occurred due to the negligent conduct of the Electricity Department in not maintaining the electricity system properly. THE petitioner's representation was rejected on the ground that it is the voluntary conduct of the husband of the petitioner in touching the live wire, which resulted in the electrocution, and further, it is the case of the second respondent, as it is seen from the impugned order that it is the 'act of God'.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner's husband late Chandran, who was 30 years old at the time of his death, was a cultivating tenant in respect of the lands belonging to Pallivasal in Meyyanendal Village, Sivagangai District. On a heavy rainy day, namely, on 3.5.2002, after the rain was stopped, the said Chandran is stated to have proceeded to the land for irrigating the same with rain water. It was at that time the live electricity wire, which was not properly maintained, has caused the instant death of the husband of the petitioner. After the death, it is stated that the petitioner has lodged a complaint on the same day in Ilayankudi Police Station and the case was registered. THE petitioner, at that time was aged 24 years and the said Chandran has left three children, all are males aged about 5, 3 and 1 years respectively. It was in those circumstances, the petitioner has issued a legal notice on 24.6.2002 claiming compensation, for the negligence of the Electricity Department, to the extent of 5 lakhs, and that came to be rejected under the impugned order.

(3.) THEREFORE on fact, the respondents in the counter affidavit have admitted the incident. In such circumstances, prima facie, there is an admission on the part of the respondent-Electricity Board in respect of the incident. The Honourable Apex Court in the case in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi and others 2000(4) SCC 543 even though held that if there are disputable question of facts, Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service, nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that the same cannot be understood as laying a law in every case of tortious liability. When there is negligence on the face of it, and due to such negligence on the part of the public undertaking there is a loss of life, it is relatable to violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such circumstances, it will be improper to drive the parties to approach the civil Court and to wait for the agony of repeated adjournments and delay, especially when due to the death of the only bread winner of the family, there arose a pathetic situation. In this regard it is relevant to extract the relevant portion of the said judgement of the Honourable Apex Court, which I had occasion to follow under similar circumstances in LILLY STANISLAUS V. 1.THE CHAIRMAN, TNEB AND OTHERS-(2008 Writ L.R.278), as under: