Entitlement to compensation for death due to electrocution and the requirement to establish other heads for seeking further compensation before the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs only) by way of compensation for the death of my mother (Late) Manikkam, aged 41 years caused due to electrocution.)

1. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) to the petitioner on the ground that the mother of the petitioner died due to electrocution, which was caused due to the negligence of the Electricity Board.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her parents were agricultural coolies and her mother was cutting grass in a sugarcane field on 14.06.2014. She died due to electrocution and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.204 of 2014, under Section 174 of Cr.PC., on the same date.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was taken care by her mother and due to the sudden demise of her mother, she was not able to pursue with the education. That apart, the income earned by the mother also abruptly came to an end and the petitioner had to face financial hardship and her livelihood was put to question.

4. It is stated that the death of the mother happened only due to the gross negligence of the Electricity Board in not properly maintaining the transmission lines. The petitioner made representations to the respondents, seeking for compensation. Since the same did not evoke any response, the present writ petition has been filed seeking for appropriate directions.

5. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:

7.The rain fall Started from 13.06.2014 onwards. The Petitioner and her mother had not gone to field in rainy Season for collecting grass the above electrical accident could have been avoided. The petitioner has furnished that her mother's earning was around a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month (Ten Thousand Only) The cooli can not earn a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month which is highly improbable. She did not obtain a income certificate from the Competent authority and Produced any Document. The petitioner has furnished false information to the Court and Suppression of facts. So mar awareners is being displayed by the TANGEDCO to avoid such a type accident. The public did not care about it. The petitioner and her moth committed mistake in this Issue It is not known why they went to field collecting grass under the Low tension Electrical Line in the rainy season.

8. The respondent denies the allegation that there was negligence on the part of the deceased and this respondent is not responsible for death of Tmy. E Manickam Ammal. The deceased Marickam ammal have taken care while attending work under the LT. Line. The Deceased Manickam Ammal failed to take precaution any measure which in fatal Electrical accident due to her carelessness.

9. Hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner beyond any doubt. I state that the respondent 3 Submit that the accident by way of electrocution of late manickam ammal was not due to the fault of this respondent, this respondent submits that the L.T.line got snapped only due to natural calamities and not due to poor maintenance this respondent States that people are already informed through News paper local TV Channel that if anybody found electrical wire cut off not to touch the same and at the same time intimate to nearest EB office or sub Station.

10. It is clearly shows the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Mankckam Ammal and met in the accident. Further the petitioner has furnished in her statement that her mother touched LT wire line unfortunately.

11. The averments in para No:9 and 10 are denied, In the Para No:9 the petition described in his affidavit about the supreme court interpretation of the rule. The Supreme cour indicated i