SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 32734

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
The Superintending Engineer, TNPDCL, Thoothukudi – Appellant
Versus
Sankareswari – Respondent
W.A(MD)No.504 of 2026 | C.M.P(MD)No.4595 of 2026 | W.P(MD)No.682 of 2026



Advocates:
For Appellants: Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
For Respondent: Mr.A.Balaji

Board-fixed compensation for electrocution upheld without interest; additional claims via civil court.

Headnote:The Single Judge directed payment of compensation under TNPDCL Proceedings No.11 dated 21.12.2024, providing Rs.10,00,000/- for fatal electrical accidents due to snapped conductors or leakage from natural calamities. Facts involved death by electrocution when deceased attempted to rescue third parties from fallen high-tension wires leaking via a pole. Court confirmed fixed compensation entitlement per Board policy but excluded interest, reserving additional claims for civil court. Issue framed as whether interest is payable beyond fixed compensation under Board proceedings. Ratio: Board voluntarily fixed compensation for such accidents without fault determination; interest not contemplated therein, and negligence/additional claims require separate civil proof. Writ Appeal partly allowed; interest grant set aside, compensation upheld.

Table of Content
1. facts of electrocution and single judge compensation award (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. appellants contest interest on fixed compensation (Para 5)
3. uphold fixed compensation, set aside interest (Para 6 , 7)
4. appeal partly allowed, no costs (Para 8)

Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2026 made in W.P.(MD) No.682 of 2026, directing the appellants/respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as compensation to the legal heirs in terms of the proceedings of the Board in (Per.) (FB) TNPDCL Proceedings No.11 dated 21.12.2024, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

2.The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent/writ petitioner seeking compensation on account of the death of her husband due to electrocution.

3.The facts of the case are that high-tension live electrical wires had fallen on a nearby tree, resulting in leakage of electricity through a telephone exchange pole, which led to electrocution of two third parties. The husband of the writ petitioner, while attempting to rescue them, also came into contact with the live wire and died due to electrocution.

4.The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the Board had issued proceedings providing for payment of 100% compensation in cases of fatal electrical accidents, awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the said proceedings, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 17.10.2025 till the date of realisation, and further observed that if the writ petitioner seeks any additional compensation, it is open to her to approach the competent civil Court, and accordingly allowed the Writ Petition.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contended that as per the Board proceedings, a fixed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- alone is payable, whereas the learned Single Judge has erroneously granted interest also.

6.Having considered the submissions made on either side, we are of the view that the question of negligence and entitlement to additional compensation may have to be independently established before the competent civil Court. However, it is seen that the Board itself, under its proceedings, has provided for payment of compensation in cases of fatal electrical accidents arising due to contact with snapped conductors or live overhead wires, as well as due to leakage of electricity in underground cables caused by natural calamities such as heavy wind, rain, and other unforeseen circumstances.

7.In such view of the matter, the Board having itself taken note of such accidents and agreed to pay the compensation amount fixed under its proceedings, the direction of the learned Single Judge awarding the said compensation cannot be faulted and is liable to be confirmed. However, with regard to the grant of interest, we are of the view that the same is not warranted. Accordingly, the portion of the order granting interest is set aside, leaving it open to the respondent/writ petitioner to work out her remedy for additional compensation in the manner known to law.

8.Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top