IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26568 of 2008 Between: G.Sanjeeva Reddy S/o.Late G.Rami Reddy R/o.Veltoor Village Mandal Peddamandadi, Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Transmission Corporation of A.P.Limited, rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyutsoudha, Hyderabad 2 The Chief Engineer,TL & SS,Erragadda, Hyderabad 3 The Superintending Engineer, Transmission Line and Sub Station, Erragadda,Hyderabad 4 The District Divisional Engineer, 400 K.V.Sub Station AP TRANSCO, Veltoor village ,Mahaboobnagar District 5 The Divisional Engineer, 400 K.V.Sub Station AP TRANSCO, Veltoor Village, Mahaboobnagar district .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioner’s son due to the permanent disability, which occurred due to the negligence of and failure to take safety measures by respondent Nos.3 and 4, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards compensation. The son of the petitioner was engaged by M/s.Urmila Constructions, to whom the contract of maintenance of a Sub-Station at Veltoor Village, Mahabubnagar District, was entrusted by respondent No.1. On the fateful day i.e., 05- 08-2008, petitioner’s son, who climbed a pole for changing PT Conductor wire, fell down from a height of 15 feet causing damage to the spinal cord. The petitioner’s son was initially admitted to SVS Hospital at Mahabubnagar and later, shifted to NIMS Hospital at Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, huge amount has already been spent for his son’s treatment by contracting debts and so far, a sum of Rs.6 lakhs was spent on medical expenditure. The petitioner claims compensation of Rs.15 lakhs for the alleged negligence on the part of the employees of respondent No.1-Company. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, the petitioner’s claim has been denied. It is inter alia stated that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner’s son and the respondents and that under agreement dated 30-10-2007 entered into between respondent No.1 and M/s.Urmila Constructions, the contractor cease of is responsible for any accidents caused to the personnel and damage to the equipment caused during the contract period. It is further stated that having regard to the unfortunate accident, contribution of Rs.1 lakh collected from the employees of respondent No.1 was paid to the petitioner. It is also stated that the contractor, under whom the petitioner’s son has been working, has taken a Group Insurance Policy and the petitioner can claim compensation for the accident under the said scheme. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. The injured is the direct employee of M/s.Urmila Constructions, which is not even impeaded in the Writ Petition. In the light of the plea of the respondents that M/s.Urmila Constructions undertook the responsibility for the accidents, the questions, whether the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the contractor or any employee of the respondents, who is liable to pay compensation and what should be the quantum of compensation payable, are required to be examined by the competent forum. The petitioner has not shown any reason for not availing the common law and statutory remedies such as civil suit, claim under the Workman’s Compensation Act or the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the face of various disputed questions of fact, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner also has not denied the plea of the respondents that his son is covered by the Group Insurance Policy. If that is so, there is no reason for the petitioner not to make a claim under that policy. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before a competent forum in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.34781 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 2nd June, 2008 LUR