KUMARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, (MADRAS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant appropriate compensation to the petitioner as this Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that her late husband and herself have been residing in Chennai and her husband was an auto driver. They are blessed with two daughters (who are married) and one son. Her husband is the sole bread winner of the family. Her husband used to go to the near-by shop every day in the morning to buy milk and on 10.01.2013 at about 5.30 a.m., as usually, her husband went to the near-by shop to buy milk. Without knowing that the electricity cable was cut and lying on the road unattended, her husband stamped the electricity cable and due to high voltage current passing into him, he screamed loudly and fell on the road. The petitioner along with her son and few neighbours, rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the petitioner's husband lying on the road without any response. He was taken to hospital where the Doctor declared that he was already dead. The petitioner gave a complaint to P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station and FIR was registered in FIR.No.67 of 2013 and the Police personnel took the custody of the body of the petitioner's husband and thereafter, post-mortem was conducted in Government Stanley Hospital, and in the post-mortem certificate, the reason for the death is shown as electrocution.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that the FIR and the Death Report filed by the Police personnel shows that the petitioner's husband died of electrocution. The respondent-Department's employees lackadaisical approach in maintaining the electricity cable, has resulted in the death of the petitioner's husband. They have not taken utmost care in maintaining the electricity cables. The petitioner's son does not have a permanent employment and she is finding it very difficult to run the family. The petitioner has sent a representation, dated 21.05.2013 to the second respondent seeking compensation. Since the said representation is not considered, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.