Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 16-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: B. Saraladevi, wife of the deceased R. Boopalan, residing at 115, Nadu Theru, Kizhanthur Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District.
  • Respondents: (1) Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai; (2) Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO); (3) Superintending Engineer, Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle; (4) Assistant Engineer, TNGEDCO, Tiruthani.
  • Background: The petitioner’s husband was standing near a bus stop on a two‑wheeler when a transformer installed near the bus stop exploded, causing his death. The petitioner alleged negligence on the part of the electricity board in maintaining the transformer and claimed compensation of Rs 28,40,000.
  • Initial Relief: A writ petition (WP No. 18628/2017) was filed. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 15‑03‑2021, awarded Rs 20,83,000 with 7.5% interest from 29‑05‑2017, payable within three months of receipt of the order.
  • Appeals: The Board filed Writ Appeal No. 2424/2021; the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 1320/2022. Both appeals were heard together. By a common judgment dated 12‑07‑2022, the Division Bench allowed the Board’s appeal (WA 2424/2021) and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal (WA 1320/2022), directing the petitioner to pursue the claim in a civil court.
  • Review Applications: The petitioner filed Review Applications (Rev. Appl Nos. 77 & 76 of 2023) under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114 of CPC, seeking to overturn the common judgment of 12‑07‑2022.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions: Alleged an error on the record – the Court had held that no bus shelter existed near the transformer, which the petitioner contested with two undated photographs showing a bench/shelter. The petitioner also argued that it was unfair to refer the compensation claim to a civil suit.
  • Court’s Observations:
  • The photographs were undated and could not conclusively establish the existence of a bus shelter.
  • The existence of a shelter, even if proved, would not resolve the core dispute of negligence, which the Board contested, claiming the deceased stood close to the transformer despite warning signs and that the explosion was an act of God due to extreme summer temperatures.
  • No rejoinder or reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner to counter the Board’s factual contentions.
  • Review jurisdiction requires a glaring, apparent error; none was found.
  • The Court reiterated that where negligence is seriously disputed, the appropriate forum is a civil court where evidence can be examined.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: The judgment referenced numerous Supreme Court decisions (e.g., State of Madras v. V.G. Row, Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandima Das, M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, MCD v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, Chairman, GRID Corp. of Orissa Ltd v. Smt. Sukamani Das, Shakuntala Devi v. Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathy, etc.) to illustrate the principle that compensation under Article 226 is permissible only when negligence is admitted or established; otherwise, civil remedies are appropriate.
  • Court’s Commentary: Expressed concern over the growing tendency to invoke Article 226 for compensation in electrocution deaths despite the availability of civil suits, labeling such practice as a misuse of the constitutional remedy.

Final Outcome

  • Both Review Applications (Rev. Appl Nos. 77 & 76 of 2023) are dismissed with no costs awarded.

Topics: Compensation; Public Law Remedy