SRINIVASAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a minor, has filed the above Writ Petition through his father claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the injuries, mental agony and sufferings undergone by him on account of the electrocution which took place on 11-12-95 at about 1.3 0 P.M. at Door No.7, Vasudevan Street, Pasumpon Nagar, Pammal, Chennai-75. Considering the grievance expressed and in the light of the factual details referred to, this Court on 14-10-99 appointed one Mr. Mohamed Khan, retired District Judge as an Arbitrator to consider the claim of the petitioner and the defence taken by the respondentElectricity Board. In the said order of reference, this Court directed the Arbitrator to submit an award with regard to the negligence aspect and quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner. Pursuant to the direction, both parties participated in the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator Mr. Mohamed Khan, after observing all formalities, examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 and recorded their evidence on different dates. At that stage, unfortunately the said arbitrator expired. Thereafter, by order dated 8-12-2000, this Court appointed Mr. O. Venkatachalam, retired District Judge as arbitrator to continue the said proceedings from the stage at which the previous arbitrator left the matter and to submit award with respect to the aspects already referred to. It is further seen that after observing all formalities, the present arbitrator examined P.W.5, doctor who treated the petitioner. The petitioner closed his side with P.W.5. On the side of the respondents, one T.V. Perumal, Junior Engineer, Electricity Board, Pammal was examined as R.W.1 and they also closed their evidence. Considering all the materials i.e., oral and documentary evidence, the arbitrator, by an order dated 4-4-2002, submitted a report holding that due to electrocution that too due to negligence on the part of the Electricity Board, the petitioner sustained injuries due to electrocution and on taking note of 100 per cent disability, disfiguration, tender age, etc., he quantified the compensation at Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 13-8-96, date of notice till 4-4-20 02 and 18 per cent per annum from that date till the date of payment, and also awarded cost of Rs.5,000/- towards. The petitioner, who is a minor, has filed the above Writ Petition through his father claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the injuries, mental agony and sufferings undergone by him on account of the electrocution which took place on 11-12-95 at about 1.3 0 P.M. at Door No.7, Vasudevan Street, Pasumpon Nagar, Pammal, Chennai-75. Considering the grievance expressed and in the light of the factual details referred to, this Court on 14-10-99 appointed one Mr. Mohamed Khan, retired District Judge as an Arbitrator to consider the claim of the petitioner and the defence taken by the respondentElectricity Board. In the said order of reference, this Court directed the Arbitrator to submit an award with regard to the negligence aspect and quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner. Pursuant to the direction, both parties participated in the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator Mr. Mohamed Khan, after observing all formalities, examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 and recorded their evidence on different dates. At that stage, unfortunately the said arbitrator expired. Thereafter, by order dated 8-12-2000, this Court appointed Mr. O. Venkatachalam, retired District Judge as arbitrator to continue the said proceedings from the stage at which the previous arbitrator left the matter and to submit award with respect to the aspects already referred to. It is further seen that after observing all formalities, the present arbitrator examined P.W.5, doctor who treated the petitioner. The petitioner closed his side with P.W.5. On the side of the respondents, one T.V. Perumal, Junior Engineer, Electricity Board, Pammal was examined as R.W.1 and they also closed their evidence. Considering all the materials i.e., oral and documentary evidence, the arbitrator, by an order dated 4-4-2002, submitted a report holding that due to electrocution that too due to negligence on the part of the Electricity Board, the petitioner sustained injuries due to electrocution and on taking note of 100 per cent disability, disfiguration, tender age, etc., he quantified the compensation at Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 13-8-96, date of notice till 4-4-20 02 and 18 per cent per annum from that date till the date of payment, and also awarded cost of Rs.5,000/- towards.

(2.) The only point for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the conclusion holding that Electricity Board alone was negligent for the incident and quantifying the compensation amount to the extent of Rs.8 lakhs are sustainable?

(3.) It is relevant to point out that when the above writ petition posted for orders on 7-2-2004 pursuant to the report submitted by the arbitrator, learned counsel appearing for Electricity Board by relying on a decision in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi, reported in 2000 AIR SCW 1717, would contend that appointment of arbitrator to go into the incident is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. In this regard, it is relevant to refer that when this Court considering the factual assertion and other prima facie material inclined to appoint an arbitrator on 14-10-99, no such objection was raised by the respondents. Even after appointment of Mr. Mohamed Khan, a retired District Judge to go into the claim, the Electricity Board not only did not raise objection but also not challenged the said order by way of an appeal. On the other hand, they participated in the proceedings before the arbitrator without any hesitation and examined their Junior Engineer as their witness to highlight their defence. In such a circumstance, I am of the view that the judgment relied on by the respondents first of all is subsequent order of this Court dated 14-10-99 and in any event, in view of the conduct of the respondents in not challenging the appointment and participating in the said proceedings they are estopped from challenging the same.