IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9895 of 2009 Between: Kodthe Saritha and another ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The A.P. Transco, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Vidyuth Soudha, Khairthabad, Hyderabad and two others. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BUJJIBABU DAVULURI Counsel for the Respondents.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APEPDCL) The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MJ} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.9895 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare that the respondents are responsible for the death of K.Swamy, the husband of petitioner No.1 and the son of petitioner No.2 and direct them to pay compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the petitioners. 2. Heard Smt. M.Punyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel, representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The husband of petitioner No.1 died of electrocution when he came into contact with a live wire on 01-05-2007. A criminal case has been registered in connection with the said accident. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have not paid compensation though the death occurred on account of their negligence. 5. On instructions, Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that while the death occurred in an unfortunate accident, no negligence can be attributed to the respondents. He, however, placed before the Court letter dated 23- 11-2007 addressed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Vanasthalipuram, APCPDCL, to the Divisional Engineer, Operation, Saroornagar, APCPDCL, wherein the former requested the latter to sanction exgratia to the legal heirs to petitioner No.1. 6. The question whether the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the respondents or not cannot be gone into in this writ petition because that requires adjudication by competent Forum on appreciation of evidence to be adduced by both the parties. Therefore, the prayer to this extent cannot be granted. However, as per the proceedings of the respondents, the petitioners are entitled to receive exgratia. Prior to 29-09-2007, if a non-departmental adult dies, a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards exgratia, was payable. The said amount has been revised by APCPDCL vide C.O.O.C.G.M. (HRD) Ms. No.465, dated 29-09-2007 to Rs.1.00 lakh. Though the unfortunate accident occurred a few months prior to the revision of the exgratia, the fact remains that no exgratia amount has been paid so far. Therefore, as on today, C.O.O.C.G.M. (HRD) Ms. No.465, dated 29-09-2007, governs payment of exgratia. 7. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh towards exgratia in terms of C.O.O.C.G.M. (HRD) Ms. No.465, dated 29-09-2007. The respondents are directed to pay the said sum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the petitioner. Payment of this amount to the petitioners is without prejudice to their right to approach the competent Forum for claiming compensation for the alleged negligence of the respondents. 8. Accordingly, with the afore-mentioned direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 9. As a sequel to disposal of writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.12839 of 2009 is also disposed of as infruactuous. _______________________ Date: 09-06-2009 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J KVR