2025:MHC:939 WA No. 121 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-03-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR WA No. 121 of 2024 1.R.Valarmathi 2.R.Selvakumar 3.Sasikala 4.Panchavarnam Ammal Appellant(s) Vs 1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. rep. by its Chairman, No.144, Anna salai, Chennai 600 002 2.The District Collector Cuddalore, Cuddalore District 3.The Executive Engineer (O and M) Tamil nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) Thittagudi and Taluk, Cuddalore District https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 121 of 2024 4.The Assistant Engineer (O and M) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Veppur Taluk, Veppur, Cuddalore District Respondent(s) PRAYER To modify the order dated 15.03.2023 in WP.No.7910/2023 on the file of this High Court of Madras. For Appellant(s): M/s.T.Gandhi For Respondent(s): Ms.Sindhuza M.S. For Mr.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel For Tangedco For R1, 3 and 4 Mrs. E.Ranganayaki, AGP For R2 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the order dated 15.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.7910 of 2023. The writ petitioners are the appellants before this Court. 2. The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 121 of 2024 pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50 Lakhs to the appellants / legal heirs of Ramasamy for the electrocution death of Ramasamy on 14.11.2022. 3. It is not in dispute that the appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Ramasamy, who died on 14.11.2022 due to electrocution. Death due to electrocution has not been disputed by the Electricity Board. Under the scheme approved by the Board, the fixed compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs has been already paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Ramasamy. 4. The writ petition has been filed seeking a compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on certain circumstances, the Writ Courts have granted compensation by adopting multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, the case of the appellant is also to be considered on the same line. Most of the judgment submitted the learned counsel for the appellants have been passed by the learned Singe Judges of this High Court. However, in one judgment, a Division Bench judgment has been referred. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 121 of 2024 5. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India time and again reiterated in unequivocal terms that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such disputed issues are to be adjudicated in a trial nature proceedings with reference to the documents and evidences available on record. 6. In the present case, the Writ Court cannot determine the compensation quantum under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act without ascertaining negligence, liability, and other factors. Even under the Motor Vehicles Act, all the factual aspects with reference to the disputes must be adjudicated, and a final opinion is to be formed by the Court to determine quantum of compensation to be paid. In the absence of any such proceedings, the Writ Court cannot pay compensation merely based on the affidavit filed by the victim in a writ petition. 7. In the present case, the Electricity Board has admitted to the electrocution death and has already paid a fixed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 121 of 2024 acknowledged by the appellants. Any further compensation requires adjudication of facts, including negligence and contributory negligence. 8. In view of the factum as stated above, the appellants are at liberty to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law seeking compensation in the manner known to law. 9. The receipt of fixed compensation from the Board does not bar the appellants from seeking further compensation by establishing their case before the Competent Court. The Writ Court has rightly granted the fixed compensation under the scheme by the Electricity Board. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the writ order impugned. 10. With these observations, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. (S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(K.RAJASEKAR J.) 03-03-2025 Jeni https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 121 of 2024 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To 1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd No 144, Anna salai chennai 600 002 2.The District Collector cuddalore cuddalore District 3.The Executive Engineer (O and M) Tamil nadu generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) Thittagudi and Taluk cuddalore District 4.The Assistant Engineer (O and M) Tamil Nadu generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) veppur taluk Veppur cuddalore District https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 121 of 2024 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. Jeni WA No. 121 of 2024 03-03-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis