XAVIER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for the death of his son.

(2.) The petitioner's only son by name Yesudas, who was blind by birth, was studying 6th standard at St. Louis Institute for the deaf and blind situated at Canal Bank Road, Adyar, Madras. On 10.10.1992, it seems at about 9.30 p.m. the petitioner's son had a dinner at a nearby hotel with the petitioner herein, and they were walking in the footpath at Cathedral Road, as used by the petitioner, in week ends. There was a slight, drizzling and the ground was wet. When the petitioner's son was passing by an electric pole which was not maintained properly, he was pulled into the electric field and fell down on the footpath and in the impact his left hand hit the open junction box touching an unprotected livewire and he was electrocuted instantly. This fact was brought to the notice of the Head Mistress of the Little Flower School for the blind situated near Gerniri Flyover, Madras and she was a witness to the body of the petitioner's son, lying there near Cathedral Road electric Pole Number 71. A Police enquiry was conducted and the postmortem record shows that the boy died of electrocution. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that indelible damage has been caused to the petitioner because of the negligence on the part of the respondents and the above incident brings home the extreme danger posed by inefficient maintenance of the electric poles by the respondents. The petitioner refers to various provisions of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1913 and also the Indian Electricity Act in the affidavit and alleges that as soon as the accident took place, a police enquiry has been conducted and that the petitioner has informed the respondents 2 and 3 herein and that no reply has been received so far. The petitioner further alleges that the pole was not maintained in a proper condition, that no earthing has been done and that even after notice of the accident it continues in the same sorry state. It is also stated that there is leakage of electricity. It is alleged in the affidavit that the respondents are duty bound to maintain the electric poles properly more so since human lives are involved. It is also stated that if the junction box had been properly locked or sealed and if the earthing had been done correctly, the life of Yesudas would have been saved. At this stage, the petitioner has come up before this Court, asking for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as mentioned in the prayer, stated above and an interim application for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- pending writ petition.

(3.) The Writ Petition has been admitted on 2.2.1993 and notice has been issued in the miscellaneous petition. When the interim application came up for hearing, time was taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. This Court adjourned the matter thrice and in spite of it, no counter affidavit has been filed. In view of that, I do not think that there is any point in adjourning the matter further and this Court has to take the allegations as such and pass orders in the interim application.