IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3091 of 2008 Between: Mopidevi Krishna Kumari, W/o Late Ramanarao, Coolie, Nizampatnam (V&M) Guntur Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.C.P.D.L., Thirupathi, Chittur Dist. 2 The Executive Engineer, A.P.S.C.P.D.L., Thirupathi, Guntur, Guntur Dist. 3 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, A.P.S.C.P.D.L., Repalle, Guntur Dist. 4 Nalukurthi Venkateswara Rao, S/o Yehoshuva, A.P.S.C.P.D.L., Nizampatnam, Nizampatnam Mandal,Guntur Dist. 5 Tunga Srinivasarao, S/o Siva Venkatarao, A.P.S.C.P.D.L., Nizampatnam, Nizampatnam Mandal,Guntur Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.L.NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.AJAYAKUMAR 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 for the untimely death of her husband due to negligence of the respondents, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a direction to pay compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. In an unfortunate incident, the husband of the petitioner, by name, M.Ramana Rao, died due to electrocution on 03.05.2007 in the midst of celebrations of deity Mogadaramma at Nizampatnam Village. He was 37 years of age at the time of his death and he left behind three sons of tender age and a young wife, who is the petitioner herein. The petitioner alleged that there is a custom in the Pallekari community, to which the deceased belonged, to celebrate festival of deity Mogadaramma for a week annually and on the last day of the festival, a procession will be taken out with a long pole on a cart by fastening a lamb to the pole. It is further alleged that before commencing the procession which is taken out on the streets, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were requested by the members of the Committee organizing the festival to disconnect the power during the time of procession and that on the assurance given by the latter that the power will be disconnected, the procession was taken out. When the procession reached a place called Madhyapalem center, near old Customs Office, the pole came into contact with a High Tension wire running across the street and the husband of the petitioner along with two other persons were instantly electrocuted. The petitioner alleged that due to negligence of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in not disconnecting the power supply during the time of procession, the unfortunate incident occurred resulting in the death of her husband, and therefore, the respondents are liable to compensate to the petitioner and her family for the loss caused to them on account of the untimely death of her husband. Sri P.V.Nageswara Rao, Assistant Divisional Engineer working in respondent No.1 Company filed a counter affidavit, in which, he denied the allegation of negligence on the part of the respondents. It is averred that as being done every year, precautions were taken during the procession held on 03.05.2007 by disconnecting the L.T. line through out the path and since H.T lines are at a higher level than the L.T. conductors, the H.T lines are not disconnected and since the height of the pole is adjustable, the concerned employee who was following through out the procession informed the persons in-charge to reduce the height of the pole, but without heeding to the advise of the employee, the procession was taken out without reducing the height, which lead to the pole coming into contact with live H.T. wire. It is further alleged that the H.T. line is connected to 10 to 12 villages and it can be disconnected only at the Sub-Station and to avoid causing inconvenience to the consumers of a number of villages, H.T lines were never switched off at any point of time and causing of accident is solely on account of negligence of the organizers of the procession. As regards exgratia, it is averred that as per the policy, which was in existence at that time, the petitioner is entitled to payment of an exgratia amount of Rs.20,000/- and accordingly, the said sum was sanctioned by the authority concerned on 08.11.2007. It is further averred that the petitioner approached the Lok Adalat, Guntur vide P.L.C.No.603 of 2007 and though the petitioner was asked to collect the amount of exgratia by producing the proof of identity, so far she has not come forward to receive the same. Heard Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. From the narration of the above-mentioned facts, the only admitted fact is the death of the husband of the petitioner. Rest of the contentions raised by the petitioner is severely disputed by the respondents. The question whether the death of the husband of the petitioner occurred on account of negligence of respondent Nos.4 and 5 or not is required to be adjudicated by the competent Court of law on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to embark upon this disputed fact. Since the petitioner is entitled to invoke the common law remedies, such as, suit or remedies under special enactments, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the writ petition on merits. As regards the exgratia amount, it is, no doubt, true that at the time of death, the quatum of exgratia payable in case of death of non- departmental persons was Rs.20,000/-. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that within a couple of months later, the said amount was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- on 17.07.2007. Immediately thereafter i.e. on 29.09.2007, the same has been enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Having regard to the pathetic situation in which the petitioner is placed on account of sudden and unfortunate death of her husband and further fact that within two months after the death, the exgratia amount is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, I deem it reasonable and appropriate to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner and in the event of higher compensation being fixed by the appropriate Court/Forum, the additional amount of Rs.30,000/- which is over and above the permissible exgratia amount of Rs.20,000/- can be adjusted by the respondents towards the compensation, which may be found payable to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The above-mentioned amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.4037 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th MARCH, 2008 kvni