Mariadas. C v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY C.Mariadas ... Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Chennai.
3.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4.The Executive Engineer (Distribution), TANGEDCO, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Junior Engineer, TANGEDCO, Manavalakurichi, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs with appropriate interest to the petitioner's family.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sankar Prakash For R1 : Mrs.S.Jeya Priya Government Advocate For R2 to R5 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with appropriate interest to the petitioner's family.
2. The petitioner submits that on 04.10.2000, his father left home to take a bath in a nearby pond, where a live electric wire had become disconnected and had fallen into the Thamaraikulam Stream. As a result, electric current passed through the water, causing the petitioner's father to be electrocuted, leading to his death.
3. After the demise of his father, the petitioner made several representations to the authorities seeking compensation. However, he received only a sum of Rs.25,000/-, that too after a delay of 13 years from the date of the incident. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking appropriate compensation.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 admits that the petitioner's father died due to electrocution. He further submits that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid on 15.02.2013 by way of cheque. The petitioner also admits receipt of the said amount.
5. The issue that now arises is whether the payment of Rs.25,000/-, made after a period of 13 years from the incident, can be considered as sufficient compensation for an electrocution death that occurred in the year 2000.
6. Had the respondents paid compensation within a reasonable time, within two months or at least within the same year of the incident, the amount of Rs.25,000/- might have been acceptable, as it was the prevailing compensation norm at that time. However, when compensation is paid after an unexplained
delay of 13 years, the amount that was adequate in the year 2000 cannot be considered as adequate in the year 2013. By that time, even the prevailing compensation for electrocution deaths was around Rs.2,00,000/-. At the very least, the respondents ought to have paid Rs.2,00,000/- when they finally chose to settle the claim in 2013.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that payment of Rs.25,000/- after a delay of 13 years is wholly insufficient. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, after deducting Rs.25,000/- already paid, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the respondents fail to make the payment within the said period, they shall pay the amount along with interest at 12% per annum from today.
8. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. NCC : Yes / No 01.12.2025 Index : Yes / No smn2
To:- 1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Chennai.
3.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4.The Executive Engineer (Distribution), TANGEDCO, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Junior Engineer, TANGEDCO, Manavalakurichi, Kanyakumari District.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY , J.
smn2 01.12.2025