R SAROJA Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband of the Writ Petitioner Ramalingam was an agriculturist owned 10 acres of land and the agricultural land belongs to the family is situated near the house of the petitioner at Melatheru, Vellamangalam, Pandanallur Post. Between the house of the petitioner and the agricultural land there is a pathway which crosses a channel called Vettaru drainage and the path is covered with very old, lengthy bamboos and other trees. THEre is a high voltage electric wire running on the road which usually causes high voltage electricity to be spread especially during rainy season and in spite of the same the authorities have not taken any steps. Earlier the supply of electricity was under the control of the second respondent, Kumbakonam Rural Electricity co-operative society, Kumbakonam.

(2.) (i) It is the case of the petitioner that the villagers have made many representations to cut down and clean the disturbance of bamboos and in spite of the same the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps at any point of time. On 19.10.1997 at 7.30 p.m, the petitioner's husband went to the agricultural land to remove the flood water from the land and he has not turned up till next morning. It was only the next day on 20.10.1997 at 6.00 a.m., one of the neighbours Mr. Mahendran came to the house of the petitioner and informed that the petitioner's husband died due to electrocution between the channels. On verification it was found that on 19.10.1997 at night an electric wire was cut down and flinged on the bank of water channel and the petitioner's husband while crossing the footpath was electrocuted and died on the same spot. On 20.10.1997 after the petitioner was informed about the death of her husband, the petitioner's son has given a complaint to the Pandanallur police station and thereafter the police officer took up investigation and the post-mortem was done in the Government hospital at Kumbakonam. The post-mortem certificate also reveals that the death might be due to electrocution. After the death of the husband, the petitioner has made many representations for payment of compensation since the death was caused solely due to the negligence of the respondent electricity Board in not maintaining the electric poles and the route of electric wires properly. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of death of the petitioner's husband he was aged 45 years and the petitioner was aged 42 years. On the basis that the respondents who are bound to maintain the electric poles and wires properly have failed to perform their legal duty which resulted in the death of petitioner's husband, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction against the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The petitioner also has stated that her husband was earning an income of Rs.5,000/- per month being an agriculturist in the land belongs to the petitioner's family was measuring 10 acres. The petitioner has also filed a legal heirship certificate showing that apart from the petitioner, the deceased-husband of the petitioner-Ramalingam was having four sons and one daughter born through the petitioner and at the time of filing of the writ petition only one daughter got married. (ii) In the counter affidavit the 1st respondent has not denied the electrocution and the consequential death of the petitioner's husband -Ramalingam. Equally, the 2nd respondent who has filed counter affidavit has also not denied about the accident. It is seen in the counter affidavit originally filed by the 1st respondent-Electricity Board dated 15.4.1999 that at the time of accident the area in which accident took place was not covered under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and administratively and technically it was under the control of the second respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent in its counter affidavit dated 17.7.2006 and relying upon G.O.124 dated 27.6.1997 has informed that the 2nd respondent has been wound up and the 1st respondent has again taken over the control. The 1st respondent has also specifically admitted that by virtue of the subsequent G.O., the 1st respondent has stepped into the shoes of the 2nd respondent Society which is no more in existence. That apart, the only issue raised by the 1st respondent is that the petitioner should have approached the Civil Court which is an effective and appropriate forum for the purpose of deciding the quantum of compensation in view of the recent judgment rendered in CHAIRMAN, GRID CORPN. OF ORISSA LTD., v. SUKAMANI DAS (1999 (7) Supreme Court Cases 298)

(3.) IN NIRMALA THIRUNAVUKKARASU v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD (1997 L.W., 42) relying upon the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' this Court has held that the usual plea of `Act of God' or mechanical failure cannot be considered as a defence while deciding about the quantum of compensation to be decided. IN such cases of negligence especially 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. 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 not as a matter of solatium for the loss of son, daughter or wife etc While elaborately discussing the law relating to Torts with reference to negligence S.A.Kader,J. in para 12 has held as follows: