W.P(MD)No.11943 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :23.06.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD)No.11943 of 2025 M.Ramu ... Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by its Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), 6th Floor, No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) Ramanathapuram Distribution Circle, Ramanathapuram. 4.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 5.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), Sub-Station, Thondi, Ramanthapuram District. 6.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), Sub-Station, Parthibanur, Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondents 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.11943 of 2025 PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to provide adequate compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner for the death of her husband due to electrocution caused by the negligent act of the respondent officials by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 18.03.2025, within the time period stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Thirumurugan For R1and R2 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate For R3 to R6 :Mr.S.Deenadhayalan ***** ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to provide adequate compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the petitioner for the death of her husband due to electrocution caused by the negligent act of the respondent officials by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 18.03.2025, within the time period stipulated by this Court. 2.The petitioner has stated that her husband namely Murugesan was engaged as a contract laborer on daily wages basis at the sixth respondent office from the year 2005. On 04-12-2017, the fourth respondent through a communication to the third respondent sent a team of 29 workers to Kanyakumari 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.11943 of 2025 District to repair the outage caused due to Ockhi cyclone. In the said list of 29 workers, the petitioner's husband was included. On 20-12-2018, the 5th respondent transferred the petitioner's husband to the village namely, Vattam near S.P.Pattinam to install a transformer. The petitioner's husband was forced to work without proper safety equipment. Due to the same, the petitioner's husband suffered electric shock and was injured in his spine and was paralyzed below the waist. Petitioner's husband was admitted in a private hospital. He could not continue his treatment, since the petitioner could not afford to the said treatment. Thereafter, the health of the petitioner's husband deteriorated and again, the petitioner's husband was admitted in the hospital on 18-02-2020 and he was treated by spending Rs.7,00,000/-. Because of the said accident, the family was struggling to survive, due to sudden financial distress. Finally, the petitioner's husband died on 09-02-2021. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner's husband died due to electric shock and subsequent injury in the spine, consequently, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. 3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 submitted that the petitioner's husband was not an employee in their institution. The petitioner's husband was a contractor laborer under the contractor and there is no nexus of employee and employer relationship. Further, the petitioner's husband has not died due to electrocution. After the said accident in the year 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.11943 of 2025 2018, the petitioner's husband has survived until 2021. Hence, there is no nexus between the accident and the death. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4.After hearing the rival submissions, this Court gave its anxious consideration. Even though the petitioner's husband was not a regular employee or permanent employee of the TANGEDCO, the accident occurred when the petitioner's husband was carrying on his work while erecting transformer in S.P.Pattinam. Therefore, TANGEDCO is liable to pay the compensation or atleast the contractor who was engaged by the respondents is liable to pay compensation. 5. The next contention of the respondents 3 to 5 is that the accident occurred on 20.12.2018 and the victim died on 09.02.2021 and therefore, there is no nexus between the accident and the death. Further, it cannot be stated as electrocution death. The petitioner has preferred a police complaint on 19.01.2019, wherein it is stated that the petitioner's husband died due to injury in the spine. The relevant portion of the complaint is extracted here under: "8.kDtpd; rhuhk;rk;: kDjhuhpd; fzth; jpdf;$yp mYtyhf ghh;j;jpgDhh; kpd; thupaj;jpy; Ntiy ghh;j;J te;jtiu vjph;kDjhuh;fs; mioj;J te;J ghJfhg;G ftrq;fs; toq;fhky; kpd; fk;gj;jpy; Vwr;nrhd;djhy; kDjhuhpd; fzth; fPNo tpOe;J KJF jz;Ltlk; Kwpe;J tpl;ljhf Gfhh;." 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.11943 of 2025 Further, the complaint is not preferred immediately but it is preferred only in the year 2019. Generally, electrocution death would be instantaneous. Even as per the complaint, the victim had injury in the spine. Therefore, the death cannot be stated as electrocution death. Therefore, the petitioner's husband cannot be considered for compensation under electrocution death. 6.As stated supra, the petitioner's husband having worked for erecting transformer is entitled to some compensation. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) as compensation to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the compensation is not paid within the stipulated time, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the period of default. 7.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 23.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Tmg 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.11943 of 2025 To: 1.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), 6th Floor, No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.11943 of 2025 S.SRIMATHY , J. Tmg ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.11943 of 2025 DATED :23.06.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis