R. Pareetha Beevi vs The Chairman

S. Vaidyanathan, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to pay the compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs to the petitioners with interest for the death of Room Batcha due to electrocution. According to the petitioners, on 4.9.2009 at 7.00 a.m. one room Batcha, who was the husband of the first petitioner and father of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, died of electrocution while he was on the way to their agricultural land situated on the western side of Eruvali Kanmai. The 2nd petitioner gave a police complaint which was registered in Cr. No. 179 of 2009 by the 4th respondent and post mortem was conducted when the cause of death was electrocution. The petitioners claim that this was due to negligence and poor maintenance by the respondents 1 to 3 since they failed to act and maintain the electrical wire as per Code 18 and 20 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code 2004. Hence the petitioners made a representation on 3.3.2010 to the authorities for grant of compensation to which the 3rd respondent also replied that there was no provision to grant compensation for the death of electrocution vide his letter dated 5.10.2010. Thereafter, the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 19.7.2011 insisting payment of compensation, for which also the respondents sent a reply on 14.3.2012 stating that falling of livewire was due to natural calamity and it was the negligence on the part of the deceased only. Therefore, finding no other alternative remedy, the petitioners came forward with the present writ petition, praying for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 6 lakhs towards compensation to the petitioners.

Resisting the claim of the petitioners, the respondents have filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments made in the writ petition, it is stated that, since disputed questions of fact were involved, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved, the proper remedy is to file a civil suit as per the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and Others Vs. Smt. Sukamani Das and Another, and the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also stated that on the fateful day, there was rain and due to heavy winds, the high tension line got snapped and fell down on the earth and at that time, the deceased who was riding a bicycle, came into contact with the live electric wire and died on the spot due to electrocution. Hence the incident occurred due to natural calamity and also contributory negligence of the deceased as he inadvertently came into contact with the live electric wire. Therefore, the respondents sought for dismissal of the petition as they are not responsible for the incident and liable to pay any compensation thereon.

Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.

The undisputed facts are that one Batcha died due to electrocution; he has not done any illegal act or violated the provisions of the Electricity Act; the death on account of electric shock has been admitted by the respondents/Electricity Board; and immediately after the incident, the respondents rectified the fault by joining the snapped HT wires.

When the above facts are not in dispute, asking the legal heirs of the deceased to approach the Civil Court is not going to answer the question. As the death had occurred not on account of negligence act of the deceased, but only due to electric shock, whether it is due to rain and heavy winds, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in asking the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and the contention of the respondents that the death occurred beyond the control of the respondents, i.e. act of God, cannot be accepted as the respondents/Board were negligent since they were not maintaining the electrical wires properly. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated in para. 5 as under:

"5. Further the respondents 2 & 3 immediately rectified the fault by joining the snapped HT wires. Further immediately after the incident the HT line got tripped so that no untoward incident will happen."

Therefore, from the above, it is clear that it was due to improper maintenance of the electrical wires by the respondents/Board, the fateful incident had occurred.

Relegating the petitioners to approach the Civil Court may not be necessary in view of the above mentioned admitted facts and more particularly, the death is due to the negligence on the part of the Electricity Board. In such event, the petitioners can claim compensation in the writ proceedings. In similar circumstances, this Court, in its decision reported in K. Sambath @ Chidambaranathan Vs. The Superintendent Engineer-I, Puducherry Electricity Board, Uppalam, Puducherry, The Junior Engineer, Electricity Board, Vadhanoor, Puducherry and The Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Puducherry, , has held that there is no need for the parties to go Civil Court while the facts were admitted and proved that the death death was due to electrocution on the part of the negligence of the Electricity Board and the Board cannot escape from the liability of paying compensation. Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the said decision are relevant and they are extracted hereunder:

"8. It is a well settled principle of law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court that if the facts are not in dispute, the legal heirs of the victims of riot, custodial killing or death due to negligence on the part of the State authorities, can claim compensation in writ proceedings. The only impediment in entertaining writ petition is, there may be factual disputes such as the manner of death, whether there was negligence or not, age and income of the deceased, etc. In this case there is no dispute with regard to the manner of death, age of the deceased and income of the deceased.

Payment of compensation can be ordered by the High Court in appropriate case, particularly when there is no factual disputes, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is no longer res integra. In this regard, the following decisions can be usefully referred to.

(i) In The Chairman, Railway Board and Others Vs. Mrs. Chandrima Das and Others, , a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was awarded as compensation to a Bangladeshi National, who was sexually assaulted by Eastern Railway Employee. Order of the High Court awarding the said compensation was upheld by the Supreme Court.

(ii) In M.S. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others, Rs. 4.10 lakhs each Was awarded for the unfortunate death of 14 young children, who died due to drowning in a river, when they were on picnic organised by the School authorities.

(iii) In Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and Others, the Supreme Court ordered payment of compensation to the families of those, who died in Uphaar Tragedy and directed the MCD to deposit Rs. 3,01,40,000/- (Rupees Three Crores One lakh and Forty thousand) and 50% of the said amount was directed to be distributed to the Claimants.

(iv) In Delhi Jal Board Vs. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers and Others, , the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the High Court of Delhi to sewerage workers'' family to Rs. 3.29 lakhs, over and above Rs. 1.71 lakhs already paid by the Government. Insofar as our High Court is concerned, the said issue is dealt with in several cases. Few decisions are as follows:

(a) C. Chinnathambi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, Rs. 1.50 lakhs with 12% interest was ordered to be paid to each school students, who died while water tank broke and fell on them.

(b) Smt. R. Dhanalakshmi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, - Rs. 9.00 lakhs was ordered to be paid to the family of a prisoner, who was killed while in custody.

(c) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department and The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Health Department Vs. Mrs. R. Selvam, Rs. 5.00 lakhs was ordered to be paid by the State due to the killing of a medical student inside the Government Medical College Hostel.

(d) C. Thekkamalai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, The Division Bench enhanced the compensation from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 5.00 lakhs for the rape victim, who was illegally arrested and raped.

(e) Lakshmana Naidu (deceased) and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, A sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs was ordered as compensation to the family of the deceased.

(f) P.N. Kanagaraj Vs. The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu and Others, Rs. 4.10 lakhs with 9% interest was ordered for the death of a school boy.

(g) V. Subramaniam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, A sum of Rs. 3.50 lakhs was directed to be paid for the death of a student in the school due to negligence of the Government School Teacher.

(h) T. Sekaran Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu - A sum of Rs. 9,07,000/- was directed to be paid to the family of a person, who was shot dead by the Security Warden of Madurai Central Prison.

(i) 2011 (1) CWC 786 (The Registrar Administration, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court v. Secretary to Government, Home Department) A sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was ordered to the family of an advocate, who died due to not providing immediate medical treatment, in the High Court premises.

(j) P. Ravichandran Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, A sum of Rs. 18.00 lakhs was ordered as compensation to the victim, who suffered 100% disability while doing drainage work.

(k) Ganesan and Nagammal Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, A sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was ordered to be paid by the State to the family of a victim, who died due to bomb attack while travelling in a Transport Corporation Bus.

(l) In V. Ramar Vs. Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, D.M.S., Chennai and Others this Court directed the State to pay a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs to the family of a woman, who died during delivery due to the negligence of the Government Hospital authorities.

(m) In Thangapandi Vs. Director of Primary Health Services, DMS Teynampet and Others, A sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was ordered to the family of a woman, who died after delivery, due to not giving proper treatment by Government Hospital Doctors.

(n) In W.P. No. 23003 of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 this Court awarded a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs to the family of a deceased student as he was killed while staying in Government Hostel.

(o) In W.P. No. 20081 of 2007 dated 4.6.2012 I had an occasion to award a sum of Rs. 29.26 lakhs to the petitioner therein, who lost both his parents due to fall of a tree on the road side. Applying the above decisions to the facts of this case, I am of the view that the respondent department is liable to pay compensation to the family of the petitioner for the death of petitioner''s wife Malathy due to electrocution on 17.5.2009.

There is no codified law for arriving at the quantum of compensation in cases of this type. The enactments like Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Workmen Compensation Act, 1948; and Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 may be applied for arriving at the just compensation. In the decision reported in C.K. Subramania Iyer and Others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Others, the Supreme Court held that there is no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at precisely. In the decision reported in M.S. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others, the Supreme Court held that multiplier method may be adopted to arrive at the just compensation. The age of the deceased can also be taken for arriving at a correct multiplier as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in P.S. Somanathan and Others Vs. District Insurance Officer and Another, .

How the Court should decide the cases of this nature is emphasised by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Ibrahim Vs. Raju and Others, . In para. 9 it is held thus,

"9. This Court has time and again emphasised that the officers, who preside over the Tribunals adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure keeping in view the relevant factors. Unfortunately, despite repeated pronouncements of this Court in which guiding principles have been laid down for determination of the compensation payable to the victims of road accidents and/or their families, the Tribunals and even the High Courts do not pay serious attention to the imperative of awarding just compensation to the claimants."

In Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, the Supreme Court pointed out the need of giving just compensation to the victim. In paragraphs 26 and 27 it is held thus,

"26. The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms.

The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another (sic situation) the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so." This Court is bound to bear-in-mind the above stated principles for arriving at just compensation.?"

Following the above, in similar circumstances, where a coolie engaged in civil construction work, died of electrocution, in its decision reported in Mrs. Saroja Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, , this Court while holding vicarious liability on the part of the officials of the Electricity Board in maintaining electric cables, has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,04,000/- towards compensation.

Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to the compensation payable by the respondents/Board.

As regards fixation of compensation in the matters of custodial death, torture, medical negligence and electrocution death, etc., there is no specific law or guidelines for arriving at just quantum of compensation. In such circumstances, drawing the analogy from well-known decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , this Court is inclined to follow the guidelines mentioned therein for arriving at just compensation.

From the Post-mortem, it is evident that the deceased Batcha died of electrocution and he was aged about 40 years. The petitioners have not furnished any particulars regarding the avocation and monthly income of the deceased. In such circumstances, this Court fixed the monthly income at Rs. 3000/- in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sri Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, , wherein, it has been held as under in para. 14.

"14. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs. 4500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs. 3000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz. in the year 2004, was Rs. 100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month. Secondly, the appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the present case, appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- per day or Rs. 4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from Rs. 4500/- to Rs. 3000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs. 4500/-."

In similar circumstances where in the absence of documentary evidence regarding income of a coolie who died in the accident, this Court has fixed his monthly income at Rs. 3000/- per month. In its decision reported in The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Shanthi and Others, , this Court has held as under:

"13. Though the claimants have not produced any document to prove the engagement of the deceased as a coolie, having regard to the age determined on the basis of an entry in Exhibit P-2-Post-mortem Certificate, the Tribunal has presumed that even if the deceased was engaged as a coolie, he would have earned atleast Rs. 3,000/- per month and contributed 1/3rd of his income to the family members. The mere fact that the accident had occurred when he was loading gunny bags itself shows that he was a coolie. No further evidence is required to prove his avocation. It is well settled that persons, who are engaged in unskilled jobs or artisans, small traders, may not have any documentary proof to prove their avocation or employment. This Court also fails to understand as to who documentary proof can be expected from a coolie in a bus stop. There are no registered coolies in bus stand unlike the porters in Railways Stations. Tough it was claimed that the deceased earned Rs. 4,500/- per monthly, the Tribunal has fixed it as Rs. 3,000/- only and by applying a proper multiplier, has arrived at the dependency compensation of Rs. 3,12,000/-. There is no manifest illegality in determining the monthly income."

Accordingly, taking into account the minimum wages that the deceased would have drawn as an agricultural coolie, his monthly income is fixed at Rs. 3000/- and following the Sarla Verma case (cited supra), this Court arrived the just compensation under the following heads, viz.,

Therefore, having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) towards compensation for the loss of their family member, Batcha, payable by the respondents 1 to 3.

In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed in part, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the petitioners towards compensation for the loss of their family member, Batcha, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, interest will carry at 6% p.a. thereon, from the date of the Writ Petition till the date of payment. No costs.