S.Muniammal v. The District Collector

ORDER This writ petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to issue appropriate instructions to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to grant compensation of a sum of Rs 15,00,000/- to the petitioner by considering the petitioners representation dated 23.05.2022 and 14.09.2022.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner's husband had passed away due to electrocution from a transformer and the said aspect was also confirmed vide the post-mortem report of the deceased. Hence, he would contend that even as per the TANGEDCO Proceedings No.6 dated 16.10.2019, the petitioner is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, this petition.

¶3In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent had denied the submissions made by the petitioner and would submit that no electricity supply was provided to the said transformer. Hence, prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶4Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶5In the case on hand, according to the petitioner, the petitioner's husband had passed away due to electrocution from a transformer and the said aspect was also confirmed vide the post-mortem report of the deceased. On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that no electricity supply was provided to the said transformer and hence, there is no possibility for electrocution.

¶6As per the post-mortem report of the deceased, it is clear that the petitioner's husband had passed away due to electrocution. In such case, it appears that there might be any connection issue or supply error, due to which, the electrocution had occurred. Therefore, when it was revealed by the post-mortem report that the death was occurred due to electrocution, it is the responsibility of the respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner in terms of the proceedings of TANGEDCO in Proceeding No.6 dated 16.10.2019.

¶7In view of the above, the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass order, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶8With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. 25-03-2026 nsa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

1.The District Collector Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai

2.Superintending Engineer TNEB Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai

3.Junior Engineer TNEB Desur, Vandavasi Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai

4.The Inspector Of Police, Desur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai. KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa

25-03-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY S.Muniammal W/o. Late subramani Door No. 61 U, Vedal colony Vedal village, vandavasi Taluk Thiruvannamalai 604 501 Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai 2.Superintending Engineer TNEB Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai 3.Junior Engineer TNEB Desur, Vandavasi Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai 4.The Inspector Of Police, Desur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai. (r4-suo Motu Impleaded As Per Order Dated 06.06.2024 In Wp.1749/2023 By Asmj) Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to issue appropriate instruction to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to grant compensation of a sum of Rs 15,00,000/- to the petitioner by considering the petitioners representation dated 23.05.2022 and 14.09.2022 within a time frame as stipulated by this Honble Court For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Enoch Charles For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Venkatesaperumal, GA for R4 Mrs.S.Anitha, SGP for R1 M/s.Danial Mary, St.counsel for R2 & 3