HC clarifies on relief to electrocution victims

Justice G Jayachandran, before whom a review petition was moved by Superintending Engineer, Tangedco, based on certain observations made while granting interim compensation, said, “Going by the line of judgments in cases where the wires were loose or snapped and the electrocution occurred, the courts have held that the Board is liable to pay compensation and a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable.

In all other cases, the courts have held that in the event of a disputed fact, compensation has to be decided by the civil court.”

“In this case, Balasubramanian got electrocuted on contacting an electrical wire while carrying a 15-feet-long iron rod. He had contacted the electrical wire 8 feet away from his building. These facts are disputed question of facts and therefore, computation of compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution is not sustainable,” the judge said while holding that it is open for the petitioners (victim’s family) to work out the remedy before the competent forum as directed by the court in its earlier order.

Justice Jayachandran, in his earlier order, while directing payment of an initial compensation of Rs 5 lakh had held that when a HT wire passed through densely populated areas, the board ought to have taken protective measures to avoid any untoward incident.

He also recorded the petitioner’s submission that while for low tension wires used for providing supply to the houses a protective plastic casing has been provided, there is no explanation as to why such protection has not been extended to the HT lines especially, when it is passing above a Corporation road.

However, based on the issue being raked up in the review petition, Justice Jayachandran clarified that it has not given any positive direction that protective plastic casing be provided to the HT lines too, but that it only opined that there was no explanation as to why itwas not so.

As the relevant regulations do not provide for the same, the court makes it clear that the observations made should not be treated as a direction or finding against the Board, nor should they be taken advantage of by the petitioners in the event of approaching the appropriate forum for further compensation, the judge observed.