1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD).No.899 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai 2. 2.The Junior Engineer (Distribution Rural), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Near Railway Station, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. : Appellants/Respondents Vs. Sundari : Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 14.06.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.5310 of 2006 on the file of this Court. PRAYER IN WP(MD)No. 5310 of 2006: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the death of Subramanian due to Electrocution . For Appellants : Mr.G.Kasinatha Durai, Standing Counsel JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY P.JYOTHIMANI, J] This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.06.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.5310 of 2006, by which the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein, claiming compensation for the death of her husband by name Mr.Subramanian due to electrocution came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge by granting compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- payable by the appellants Electricity Board with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the accident. 2. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants that the interest granted from 01.05.2005 is not tenable cannot be taken into account, for the reason that the electrocution took place on 01.05.2005 and immediately thereafter, in the year 2006 itself, the respondent herein has filed the said Writ Petition. The negligence on the part of the electricity board has prima facie been proved and taking note of the fact that under such circumstances, the respondent herein cannot be driven to approach the Civil Court, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. In such view of the matter, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellants seeks time to implement the order of the learned Single Judge. Twelve weeks time, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, is granted to the appellants Electricity Board to implement the order of the learned Single Judge. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( RTI Act ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR NB To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai 2. 2.The Junior Engineer (Distribution Rural), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Near Railway Station, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. 1CC TO MR.G. KASINATHADURAI, ADVOCATE, SR: 32248: DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:21:: JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.899 of 2011 20.09.2011 2P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/