JUDGMENT

(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

This appeal is filed by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge, who allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation with 18% interest for the death of her husband on account of electrocution.

2. The husband of the first respondent died on 16.11.2007. The First Information Report and the post-mortem certificate, prima facie, indicate that the death was due to electrocution. Under those circumstances and after making a representation on 05.05.2008, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with interest.

3. The learned Single Judge taking note of the First Information Report filed along with the post-mortem certificate came to the conclusion that the death was due to electrocution. The counter affidavit filed by the appellants was also taken note of. However, while fixing the compensation, the parameters available under the Motor Vehicles Act have been taken into consideration and accordingly, a sum of Rs.17,74,700/- with interest at 8% per annum has been fixed.

Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though the death was due to electrocution, there is a contrary stand with respect to the lying overhead line. In the First Information Report, it has been stated that the lines are snapped due to heavy wind on 15.11.2007. But in the affidavit, an averment has been made that the live wire in the ground was lying for three days and the same has been brought to the notice of the officials of the appellants, which is factually incorrect.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned Single Judge rightly took into consideration the relevant materials and the compensation has been fixed by applying the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Andal and others vs Avinav Kannan, New India Assurance Co., Ltd reported in 2019 (1)

TNMAC 54 (Mad). Therefore, no interference is required.

6. Law on this aspect is quite settled. The disputed question of fact involving appreciation of evidence is not expected to be adjudicated upon in a writ proceeding. Prima facie, there appears to be some discrepancy between the submission based upon which the First Information Report has been registered and the averment made in the affidavit. However, there is no dispute with respect to the electrocution and the death caused by the snapping of the overhead line. Even according to the appellants, snapping of the line happened on

15.11.2007.

7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to pass equitable order directing the appellants to pay a further sum of Rs.2,20,000/- along with interest for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, from the date of accident till the date of payment while taking note of the fact that a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- has already been paid during the pendency of the present proceedings. The aforesaid payment will have to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8. Inasmuch as the observation made by the learned Single Judge and what has been observed by us in this appeal are to be construed as prima facie, while giving liberty to the respondent to file a comprehensive suit, the aforesaid findings are to be eschewed and the Civil Court is expected to decide the suit on its own merit by applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, we are inclined to grant three months time to the respondent to file the suit.

9. The writ appeal stands disposed of and the order of the learned Single Judge stands modified accordingly. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(M.M.S., J.) (S.K., J.)

02.08.2021 Index:Yes/No mmi/ssm M.M.SUNDRESH,J.

and S.KANNAMMAL,J.

mmi W.A.No.236 of 2020

02.08.2021