Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 793
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
A. Kumaravel Father & Guardian to K. Anand Babu Minor – Petitioner
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 7735 of 2006
Decided On : 11-04-2019
For the Petitioner: M/s. D. Nellaiappan.
For the Respondent: S.K. Rameshwar.
The court emphasized the liability for negligent maintenance of electrical wires/lines, rejected the defense of Act of God, and applied the principles of compensation for personal injury cases to award just and reasonable compensation.
Headnote:
Writ of Mandamus - Compensation for Electrocution Injury - Electricity Act, 2003 - [Electricity Act, 2003, Section 135] - The court discussed the liability of the respondents for the injury sustained due to electrocution, the disputed questions of fact, and the quantum of compensation. It highlighted the principles of compensation for personal injury cases, the assessment of permanent disability, and the basis for determining compensation. The court found the respondents liable for negligent maintenance of electrical wires/lines and held that the defense of Act of God was untenable. It concluded that the Writ Petition was maintainable and awarded just and reasonable compensation to the petitioner's son.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compensation for the injury sustained by his son due to electrocution. The respondents disputed the cause of the accident and the quantum of damages claimed. The court examined the facts, including the FIR, hospital bills, and disability certificate, to establish the occurrence of the accident and the extent of the injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the negligent maintenance of electrical wires/lines by the respondents and rejected the defense of Act of God. It held that the Writ Petition was maintainable and awarded just and reasonable compensation to the petitioner's son based on the principles of compensation for personal injury cases.
Issues: Disputed liability for the electrocution injury, maintainability of the Writ Petition, and quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established the liability of the respondents for negligent maintenance, rejected the defense of Act of God, and determined the maintainability of the Writ Petition based on undisputed facts. It applied the principles of compensation for personal injury cases to assess the extent of permanent disability and awarded just and reasonable compensation.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 10,60,000 to the petitioner's son, with specified interest, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation for the injury sustained by the Petitioner’s son on account of electrocution.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that his minor son, K. Anand Babu, was playing in the Petitioner’s house on 23.07.2005 and at about 12 noon, went to the ground situated behind the Petitioner’s house in order to urinate. An electrical wire/line was hanging at ground level and the said wire came in contact with Anand Babu’s hand. As a result, he was electrocuted and his right hand was badly damaged. People in the vicinity found the Petitioner’s son on the ground and informed his parents. On reaching the spot, the parents found him in an unconscious state and took him to the Sri Kanchi Kamakotti Shankara Hospital for treatment. The Doctors who attended to him informed the Petitioner that his son had suffered second-degree burns. Accordingly, he was treated there as an inpatient between 23.07.2005 and 25.07.2005 and a sum of about Rs. 10,000/- was spent on treatment during the above period.
3. In view of the fact that the Petitioner was not in a position to incur further expenses at a private hospital, the Petitioner admitted his son in the Government Stanley Hospital. However, the injury was so extensive that Doctors advised that he should undergo surgery. Thereafter, it was informed by the Doctors that his right arm was required to be amputated up to the fore arm. Based on medical advice, his right hand was amputated up to the forearm on 25.07.2005. After amputation, the Petitioner’s son stayed in hospital as an inpatient until 28.09.2005. After discharge, the Petitioner’s son continued to receive treatment once a week and thereafter once in 15 days. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner's son still suffers from pain on account of the said amputation and he is unable to use his right hand. He is also unable to bend his arm.
4. The Petitioner also states that his son was in the fifth standard when the accident occurred and that he was a hard-working and top ranking student. The Petitioner also states that the electrocution is a consequence of the rash and negligent conduct of the Respondents and that the Respondents should have ensured that the hanging wire was removed or, in the alternative, electricity supply should have been disconnected until the problem was fixed. Consequently, the Petitioner states that the Respondents are directly responsible for the mishap which resulted in the unfortunate amputation of the forearm of the Petitioner's son.
5. The Petitioner further states that he sent a lawyer’s notice dated 14.12.2005 to the Respondents and called upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation for the loss of his son’s limb and for the expenses incurred in that regard.
6. By counter affidavit dated 20.06.2012, the Respondents state that they deny that the Petitioner's son was electrocuted on 23.07.2005 on account of coming into contact with an electrical wire that was hanging at ground level and that this resulted in the amputation of the forearm of the Petitioner's son. The Respondents further state that periodical maintenance is carried out but that the electrical wire could have been dislodged on account of strong winds and the effect thereof on branches of trees, which may have caused the dislodging of the wire.
7. The Respondents further state that the Writ Petition is not maintainable because liability is disputed and disputed questions of fact are involved. In this regard, the Respondents rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 3412 and AIR 2000 SC 1717 to the effect that a civil suit should be filed and that a Writ Petition is not maintainable in such facts and circumstances. It is further stated that the Respondents
