Thamari and Sindhu v. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Shaffique, J.
Judgment Date: 2013-08-26
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed; the High Court does not interfere with the Lok Adalath’s directions (Ext.P5) and the compensation as calculated by the Adalath stands.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; no interference with Ext.P5; Lok Adalath order stands.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thamari
Sindhu

Respondents

Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board
Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board
Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kerala State Electricity Board

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Poovappally M. Ramachandran Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P.P. Thajudeen, Senior Counsel, K.S.E.B.
• Sri. C.K. Karunakaran, Senior Counsel, K.S.E.B.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P5, an order of the Permanent Lok Adalath exercising powers under Section 22A(b)(iii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, directing payment of compensation in a case arising from electrocution deaths. The petitioners, Thamari (wife) and Sindhu (daughter) of Krishnan Nadar, allege that Krishnan Nadar died on 21 April 2005 due to electrocution. Only Rs. 50,000 had been paid under the Vydhyuthi Suraksha Insurance Scheme, and the petitioners seek a total relief of Rs. 3,00,000 after deducting the already paid amount. The respondents dispute liability beyond the paid amount. The Lok Adalath calculated compensation by treating the deceased as 58 years old (without conclusive proof) and using an income figure of Rs.2,500 per month (Rs.30,000 annually). With a multiplier of 5, the Adalath fixed a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000, of which 1/3 was allotted for personal expenses, leaving Rs.1,00,000. After deducting the Rs.50,000 already paid, the balance was ordered as Rs.50,000 to be paid: Rs.35,000 to the first petitioner and Rs.15,000 to the second petitioner. The petitioners contend the age and income were not properly established and rely on extant authorities to challenge the decision. The respondents maintain that compensation already paid is the limit. The High Court, while noting jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 and citing a Supreme Court decision, finds no perversity in the PLA order and dismisses the petition, upholding the Lok Adalath’s directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 22A(b)(iii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine of perverse orders (perversity standard in judicial review)
Powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 to review Lok Adalath orders

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenge Ext.P5 on grounds that the Lok Adalath erred in assuming the deceased’s age as 58 years without concrete proof ( Ext.P3 indicates 58, while Ext.R1(a) mahazar suggests 54). They contend there was no admissible evidence of age or adequate income; reliance on Ext.R1(a) is misplaced for quantum calculations. They also invoke the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh to assert maintainability of challenge under Articles 226/227.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend there is no liability beyond the compensation already paid under the insurance scheme. They argue no proper proof of age or income was presented to warrant a higher quantum and that the Adalath correctly applied a reasonable calculation, deducting prior payment and applying standard multipliers.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh	AIR 2008 SC 1209	Mentioned Only	Cited by counsel to support maintainability of challenging Lok Adalath orders under Articles 226/227; the court notes the citation but does not base its decision on its ratio.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/4TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 22209 of 2010 (A)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): -----------------------** **1. THAMARI, W/O. KRISHNAN NADAR, MULLASSERY COLONY, KOOTTAPPU, AMBOORI VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. SINDHU, D/O. KRISHNAN NADAR, MULLASSERY COLONY, KOOTTAPPU, AMBOORI VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR.** **RESPONDENT(S):** **------------------------** **1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,** **KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, AMBOORI P.O.** **3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION,** **KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VELLARADA P.O.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, K.S.E.B.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **WP(C).No. 22209 of 2010 (A)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN OP. NO. 186/2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **EXT.P2 COPY OF THE POSTMORTEM CERTIFICATE NO.931/2005 DATED 22/04/2005.** - **EXT.P3 COPY OF THE DEATH REPORT OF THE S.I. OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION.** - **EXT.P4 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OP. NO. 186/2009.** - **EXT.P5 COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 15/01/2010 OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.R1A COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR DATED 21/04/2005 PREPARED BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VELLARADA.** - **EXT.R1B COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO.M(F)489/2010 (LC.III/5552/2009) DATED 22/02/2010.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.** **---------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 22209 of 2010-A --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] August, 2013** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners challenge Ext.P5 order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath exercising the power under S.22 A (b)(iii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 2. The complaint came to be filed before the Adalath as Ext.P1 Complaint No. 186/2009 inter alia contending that the first petitioner's husband died due to electrocution on 21.4.2005. Only an amount of Rs.50,000/had been paid as compensation on 11.1.2008. The first petitioner is the wife and the 2[nd] petitioner is the daughter of the deceased. They claim a total amount of Rs. 3 lakh after deducting Rs.50,000/- already paid. 3. The respondent disputed the liability. According to them, there is no basis for the said claim. However, on the basis of the Vydhyuthi Suraksha Insurance Scheme, W.P.(C) No. 22209 of 2010-A 2 the petitioners were paid Rs.50,000/- on 16.1.2008 and no further amount is payable. Though conciliation proceedings were initiated it is found that it was not possible for a settlement between the parties. Hence the Adalath decided to determine the dispute between the parties. The petitioners' complaint regarding Ext.P5 is with reference to quantum of compensation. The Adalath found that, according to the petitioners, the deceased Krishnan Nadar was aged 58 years at the time of the accident. No records were produced before the Adalath to prove the said age of the deceased. The Adalath observed that the petitioners has not adduced any evidence to prove the age of the deceased. The monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.2,500/- in the absence of any other evidence. Hence the annual income was arrived at Rs.30,000/- and taking 5 as multiplier, the compensation was fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- of which 1/3[rd] was adjusted towards personal expenses. The balance of Rs.one lakh W.P.(C) No. 22209 of 2010-A 3 was fixed as compensation. Rs.50,000/- already paid was deducted. The balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid in the following manner i.e. Rs.35,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.15,000/to the second petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenge Ext.P5 inter alia contending that the Lok Adalath committed serious error of law in assuming that the age of the deceased was 58 years, whereas according to them as per the details produced by the respondents the age is admitted as 54 years. 5. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents controverting the allegations raised in the writ petition. According to them, whatever amount has been directed to be paid has already been paid and therefore there is no question of compensation over and above what has been stated therein. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the W.P.(C) No. 22209 of 2010-A **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** judgment of the Supreme Court in **State of Punjab and another** v. **Jalour Singh** (AIR 2008 S.C 1209) in order to contend that it is open for the petitioners to challenge the decision of the Lok Adalath before this Court in a proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. There is no dispute regarding the nature of jurisdiction this Court could exercise in the matter. The question is whether there is any perversity in the direction issued by the Lok Adalath in the matter. 8. The main contention urged by the petitioners is regarding the age of the deceased as well as the quantification of amount by the Lok Adalath. In Ext.P3 report it is indicated that the deceased was 58 years of age at the time of the accident. This was accepted by the Adalath even though there was no evidence in that regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Ext.R1(a) which is a mahazar prepared by the Electricity Board W.P.(C) No. 22209 of 2010-A 5 officials. It only states about the approximate age of the deceased and it is not the proof of the age of the deceased. It was open for the petitioners to adduce evidence regarding the proof of age. Having not done so, they cannot rely upon Ext.R1(a) to contend that the age of the deceased was 54. The age of the deceased in the death certificate is given by the 1[st] petitioner or any person who had known the deceased. Therefore, I do not think that the Adalath has committed any error of law in taking the age of the deceased as 58 years. 9. In regard to income as well, there is no proof or evidence adduced by the petitioners to prove the income of the deceased and therefore Adalath had no other option other than to take the approximate amount as income of the deceased. The amount shown as income is Rs.2500/which is not less by any standard as on the date of accident. That being the situation, I do not think that the Adalath had committed any illegality or perversity in W.P.(C) No. 22209 of 2010-A 6 passing Ext.P6 order. In these circumstances, I do not intend to interfere with the directions issued at Ext.P5. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **rka A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE** ## **True copy** **P.S.to Judge** W.P.(C) No. 22209 of 2010-A 7