Uncategorized

Order of HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L., MEMBER S.H.R.C. No.7178/22/15/2021/HC3 & S.H.R.C. No.11694/22/15/2021/HC3 Thiru.N.Vishnu Priyan

by Sekar Reporter · December 10, 2025

STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – TAMIL NADU
143- P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road, Chennai – 28

Wednesday, the 10th day of December, 2025

PRESENT
HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L.,
MEMBER

S.H.R.C. No.7178/22/15/2021/HC3 &
S.H.R.C. No.11694/22/15/2021/HC3

Thiru.N.Vishnu Priyan
s/o S.Needhi Kannan
No.112-C, Rajammal Compound
Neppolian Street
Keezha Vaidayanathapuram
Madurai – 625 018 … Complainant

-vs-

(1) The Superintendenting Engineer
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle/Metro
TANGEDCO
K. Pudur, Madurai

(2) The Executive Engineer
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle/Metro
TANGEDCO
K. Pudur, Madurai

(3) Thiru.K.Shanmuganatha Boopathy
Assistant Executive Engineer
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle/Metro
TANGEDCO
K. Pudur, Madurai

(4) Thiru.C.Pancharaj
Line Inspector
Madurai Electricity Distribution Ciecle/Metro
TANGEDCO
K. Pudur, Madurai … Respondents

“EVERY CITIZENS HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS AS THEIR BIRTH RIGHTS”

COMMON ORDER

Gist of the complaint allegations is as follows:-

The complainant Thiru.N.Vishnu Priyan, s/o S.Needhi Kannan is residing at No.112-C, Rajammal Compound, Neppolian Street, Keezha Vaidyanathapuram, Madurai – 625 018. The complainant states that on 23.06.2021, while he was working at the Annanagar EB office in Madurai, the Line Inspector Tr.Pancharaj/4th respondent called the complainant and others namely Madhavan, Krishna Chandran, Chellapandi, Surya and took them to install post. The said Line Inspector Tr.Pancharaj who took the complainant there introduced him and said that he was Tr.Shanmuganatha Boopathy, who is the 3rd respondent and said that some posts need to be installed urgently. At that time, the 3rd respondent forced the complainant to dig only 2 feet deep, pour concrete and complete the post installation work, to which the complainant said that he could climb it only after digging 5 feet deep, pouring concrete after 5 hours of time.

2. The complainant alleged that the 3rd respondent said that the work should be completed urgently. Hence, the complainant and others started their work without being able to disobey the officials. The complainant states that on the day of the incident, at 1.30 pm, a post was erected near Amma Mess near the Madurai District Court Arch and concrete was poured. In 10 minutes, the 4th respondent Tr.Pancharaj asked the complainant to climb the above post and connect him. While the complainant was climbing the above post and engaging in the connection work, the above post on which he climbed collapsed and the complainant fell from a height of about 30 feet and the above post pole fell on him.

3. The complainant further alleged that his bones in his right thigh below his waist were broken, which put him in a life-threatening condition. His above fellow workers and the 4th respondent, who were watching this, informed the 3rd respondent Tr.Shanmugabupathi, Assistant Executive Engineer about the incident and took the complainant to MIOT Hospital in K.K. Nagar at about 2 pm. After being admitted there, they wiped the blood with cloths, bandaged it and the hospital authority demanded Rs.5 lakh for the surgery. To this, the 3rd and 4th respondents said that they could not afford Rs.5 lakhs rupees for the treatment. The complainant’s brother Krishna Chandran and the complainant asked the 3rd and 4th respondents to somehow take the complainant to the Government Rajaji Hospital in an ambulance. Then the 3rd respondent said that if the complainant go to Government Hospital, he will become a big police case and hence the 3rd and 4th respondents took him to another hospital. At 4 PM, they admitted the complainant to the Rajan Hospital near Mahabupalayam, Madurai, for treatment. There, the said Rajan hospital administration had asked the complainant to pay Rs.40,000/- and accordingly the complainant’s family painstakingly paid the said amount. After that, the bones that were broken in 13 places on his right thigh and leg were bandaged with plates.
4. The complainant further alleged that on 24.06.2021 at 5.30 PM, a police officer from Puthur Police Station asked the complainant’s family to sign several papers. The said Rajan Hospital administration also obtained signatures on several papers from his family. In this situation, the above 3rd and 4th respondents told the complainant not to tell anyone about this accident and that they will give money for treatment and ran away without giving any money. When the complainant called them, the 4th respondent refused to come and said that he had symptoms of Corona and the 3rd respondent could not be contacted.

5. The complainant further alleged that on 29.06.2021 Dr.Velmurugan of the said Rajan Hospital demanded that the complainant has to pay another Rs.60,000/- and discharge him on 1.07.2021 and if the complainant fail to pay the said amount of Rs.60,000/-, he threatened that he would pull out the plate wires placed in his thigh and send him out. Shocked by the brutal medical bill robbery of the hospital, the complainant and his family have been cheated and abandoned by the 3rd and 4th respondents and are in a miserable situation of having to take loans at interest and pay medical bills.

6. The complainant further alleged that it is the negligence and carelessness of the above 3rd and 4th respondents. Due to the concrete mixture scam and irresponsible post and pole erection, the complainant has been put in this situation, disabled and losing the complainant’s future.

7. The complainant further alleged that the said Rajan Hospital Administration and the 3rd and 4th respondents, who have put the complainant in this cruel situation, should be arrested and properly investigated, a case should be registered and brought before the law so that justice can be done for the physical disability and future loss caused to the complainant.

8. Therefore, the complainant prayed this Commission to take appropriate action against the respondents and a proper investigation be conducted and a case be registered against the above persons and brought before the law for the crimes such as concealing the accident by not taking them to a private hospital, concealing the accident by not providing proper information to the police, corruption in concrete mixing and post installation, making workers work in an irresponsible manner and cheating. The complainant also prayed this Commission to take proper action against the respondents and award appropriate compensation to him for the negligence on the part of the respondents.

9. The complainant also filed another complaint with similar complaint allegations and the same was numbered as SHRC Case No.11694/22/15/2021 and since the sum and substance of the same content, this complaint was tagged with SHRC case No.7178/22/15/2021.

10. On perusal of the complaint of the complainant, this Commission has called for a detailed report from the Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Chennai. In pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent/Superintendenting Engineer (i/c), Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle/Metro, K. Pudur, Madurai submitted a detailed report in this regard.

11. The said report reveals that the work of erecting the poles had been executed on 23.6.2021 based on the oral instructions issued by Thiru K Shanmuganatha Boopathy, the Asst Exe. Engineer / KK Nagar/ Metro/Madurai to Thiru C Pancharaj, Line Inspector. The Petitioner Thiru N. Vishnupriyan has undergone accident on the same date ie. 23.6.2021 while climbing the pole and was admitted in the nearby private hospital for giving first aid and initial expenses were paid by Thiru C Pancharaj, Line Inspector and no further financial support for medical treatment as Thiru N. Vishnupriyan is not an employee of TANGEDCO. Hence the petitioner has registered an police complaint vide FIR No.1337 dated 24.11.2021 claiming the accidental compensation and for the expenses incurred during the course of his medical treatment. Based the FIR, complaint filed by the petitioner, the case has been proceeded in the Court. Considering the above situation, the enquiry officer has recommended to take action based on the outcome of the court’s verdict filed by the complainant and which is also recommended by the undersigned. On perusal of the said report, since this Commission has not satisfied with the report, issued summons to the respondents.

The brief of the counter statement filed by the 1st respondent is as follows:-

12. The 1st respondent filed the counter statement with some denial of the complaint allegations. The 1st respondent submitted that upon receipt of the complaint of the complainant, the Executive Engineer / South / Metropolitan / Madurai was appointed as the Investigation Officer to investigate the complaint. The Investigation Officer has stated in his investigation report that since action is being taken through the police department and the court, action may be taken depending on the action taken by the court order.

13. The 1st respondent further submitted that the above complaint was received in this office through the Chief Minister’s website and the complainant was informed through this office’s letter dated 05.03.2022 that since the complaint of the complainant (FIR NO.1337) is pending in the police department, further action will be taken in this office depending on the action taken by the police department and the court.

14. Furthermore, the 1st respondent submitted that an explanation was sought from the Executive Engineer / Division / North / Metropolitan / Madurai regarding this incident through this office memorandum dated 07.03.2022. In this regard, the explanation received from the Executive Engineer / Division / North / Metropolitan / Madurai on 10.03.2022 stated that no details were recorded in the Executive Engineer’s office register and the K.K. Nagar Divisional Office Accident Register regarding the electrical accident and when the Job Allocation Register for field workers was examined on 23.06.2021, when the accident was mentioned, it was reported that “11KV Industrial estates” was made in it.

15. The letter dated 07.12.2023 of the Executive Engineer / North / Metropolitan / Madurai, as per the investigation of the complaint of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, 4th respondent was allotted for tree cutting and other work in the office on 23.06.2021 and an accident occurred at the place where the incident mentioned by the complainant took place. It was revealed during the investigation that the petitioner, who was working to install the electric pole, fell down and suffered an accident and the 3rd and 4th respondents took the complainant to the hospital and treated him.

16. It is further submitted by the 1st respondent that according to the investigation regarding this incident, the complainant was immediately admitted to the hospital and given first aid treatment and the expenses for medical treatment were paid for by the Assistant Executive Engineer, K.K. Nagar and the 4th respondent, as per the petitioner’s request, he was admitted to the Government Hospital for further treatment and was assisted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, K.K. Nagar. Therefore, it is stated that appropriate departmental action will be taken in accordance with the police action and court orders in this case. It is humbly stated that no human rights violation has occurred and that appropriate action will be taken in this case based on the further orders of this Commission.

The brief of the counter statement filed by the 2nd respondent is as follows:-

17. The 2nd respondent filed a separate counter statement and denied the averments made by the complainant. The 2nd respondent submitted that no written details were reported regarding the accident of the petitioner in the K.K. Nagar Division Office Accident Register and the Divisional Officer on the specific date. On examining the records maintained by the K.K. Nagar Electricity Division, no details were recorded regarding the accident mentioned by the petitioner.

18. The 2nd respondent further submitted that petitioner’s complaint was duly received from the headquarters on 02.02.2022 and examined. As per the report dated 09.03.2022 of the Divisional Officer, on 23.06.2021, the day of the incident, the work of felling and other maintenance work at the 11KV factory plant was allotted to the 4th respondent as confirmed by the work allocation register. It is further submitted that on 23.06.2021, the 3rd respondent did not say whether any accident occurred during the mega maintenance work on that day. Since no report was received from the division office that any accident occurred on that day, no accident report was submitted from the office of the Executive Engineer. The complainant Tr.N. Vishnupriyan being a person outside the Electricity Board, did this work along with the 4th respondent without any permission from the Electricity Board.

19. It is further submitted by the 2nd respondent that in this regard a FIR has been registered and legal action has been taken. It is submitted that the complainant, while it is unfortunate that he got into an unexpected accident and was injured, has forgotten the first aid and medical assistance provided to him with humanity. He is continuously filed complaints criticizing all departments including the Electricity Board and has put his needs first for selfish reasons. Therefore, the 2nd respondent prayed this Commission to consider his counter statement and pass orders accordingly.

The brief of the counter statement filed by the 3rd respondent is as follows:-

20. The 3rd respondent denies that all the facts stated in the petition filed by the complainant before this Commission, except those which are specifically admitted by the 3rd respondent, are false and untrue. It is stated by the 3rd respondent is that on 23-06-2021, the 4th respondent Tr.Pancharaj, Line Inspector was allotted tree felling and other works on the 11 KV Industrial Estate power line. In the above other work, he has installed new power poles for the power line diversion using a crane. While the work was in progress, an accident occurred at around 2:00 pm and he was given first aid. The 3rd respondent have also personally visited the MIOT Hospital in the City on the advice of the 4th respondent.

21. It is further submitted by the 3rd respondent that when he enquired the 4th respondent regarding the above accident on 23-06-2021, he said that he did not know the person who was involved in the accident. Further, the said Pancharaj had provided first aid at his own expenses on humanitarian grounds, even though he did not know the identity of the person who was involved in the accident and had also informed the 3rd respondent that he would inquire about the person who was involved in the accident and inform him of his details.

22. It is further submitted by the 3rd respondent that on the request of the person, who was involved in the accident, his mother and relatives, the 4th respondent admitted the victim in Sri Rajan Ortho Hospital, Madurai for ongoing medical treatment and further treatment and the 4th respondent also provided treatment on humanitarian grounds at his own expenses. In such a situation, the complainant filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.1337/2021 in K. Puthur Police Station, Madurai City was registered on 23-06-2021.

23. It is also submitted by the 3rd respondent that the comoplainant also filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, seeking compensation and the case is pending as I.A. No.130/2023. Therefore, the 3rd respondent prayed this Commission to dismiss the complaint of the complainant filed before this Commission.

The brief of the counter statement filed by the 4th respondent is as follows:-

24. The 4th respondent denied all the allegations leveled against him by the complainant before this Commission, except those specifically admitted by the 4th respondent, are false and untrue and the burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove the same. It is stated by the 4th respondent that as per the verbal order received from his superior, on 23.06.2021 around 09.00 am, he properly planted an electric pole on the track as per the Electricity Board regulations and then was engaged in the tree cutting task assigned to him, cutting the branches of trees in the gap opposite the Kaliamman Temple electric track near Madurai Mattuthavani Bus Stand Vegetable Market, along with his colleagues.

25. The 4th respondent further submitted that, at around 1.50 pm, a passerby reported that an electric pole located in the industrial estate had collapsed and a youth was lying injured. When the 4th respondent immediately went to the scene, he found the complainant lying injured in the leg. The 4th respondent immediately informed his superior, Assistant Executive Engineer, over the phone. Thereafter, on humanitarian grounds, he immediately admitted the injured person to a nearby private MIOT HOSPITAL for treatment and then admitted him as an inpatient at Rajan Ortho Hospital. He provided medical assistance to the injured person on humanitarian grounds at his own expense and paid Rs.2,25,000 towards the medical expenses of the complainant and when he was discharged from the hospital, the 4th respondent also paid Rs.13,000 to the petitioner’s doctor.

26. The 4th respondent further submitted that despite paying the medical expenses, forgetting that the 4th respondent helped the complainant recover from his injury, he filed a complaint at the K.Puthur Police Station on 24.11.2021 with false information and a case was registered as Crime No.1337/2021 and the same is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-VI. The complainant also filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-(Fifty Lakhs) and the same is pending before Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.

27. The 4th respondent further submitted that the complainant has also filed a complaint with the Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDGO, Chennai and on the recommendation of the Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDGO, the Executive Engineer of Madurai Metropolitan Circle (South) was appointed for enquiry in this regard and the 3rd and 4th respondents have been enquired on 05.01.2022 and submitted his enquiry report to the Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO. The complainant sent this complaint to this Commission with the intention of causing mental distress to the 4th respondent. He has also filed petitions with various authorities and officials with the intention of causing mental distress to the 4th respondent. He has also concealed the truth and made false statements before this Commission.

28. It is further submitted by the 4th respondent is that the complainant have no connection whatsoever with this accident. The complainant has not employed in any work and has not taken up any job in TANGEDCO. The injury caused to the complainant is due to the negligence of the complainant himself. The 4th respondent has no connection with this case. Therefore, the 4th respondent prayed this Commission to dismiss the complaint.

29. The following are the points that arise for consideration in this case:-

(i) Whether the respondents had violated any of the human rights of the complainant; and

(ii) What reliefs the complainant Vishnupriyan is entitled to?

Point No.(i):

30. This complaint is filed by the complainant against the respondents to award appropriate compensation to the complainant and to take suitable action against the officials who were responsible for the accident took place on 23.06.2021 to the complainant.

31. The main allegations of the complainant that on 23.6.2021, while he was working at the Annanagar EB office in Madurai, the Line Inspector Tr.Pancharaj/4th respondent called the complainant and others and took them to install post. The said Line Inspector Tr.Pancharaj who took the complainant there introduced him and said that he was Tr.Shanmugabhupathi, who is the 3rd respondent and said that some posts need to be installed urgently. At that time, the 3rd respondent forced the complainant to dig only 2 feet deep, pour concrete and complete the post installation work, to which the complainant said that he could climb it only after digging 5 feet deep, pouring concrete after 5 hours of time.. The complainant alleged that at 1.30 pm, a post was erected near Amma Mess near the Madurai District Court Arch and concrete was poured. In 10 minutes, the 4th respondent Tr.Pancharaj asked the complainant to climb the above post and connect him. While the complainant was climbing the above post and engaging in the connection work, the above post on which he climbed collapsed and the complainant fell from a height of about 30 feet and the above post pole fell on him.

32. It is further case of the complainant that his bones in his right thigh below his waist were broken, which put him in a life-threatening condition. His above fellow workers and the 4th respondent, who were watching this, informed the 3rd respondent Tr.Shanmugabupathi, Assistant Executive Engineer about the incident and took the complainant to MIOT Hospital in K.K. Nagar at about 2 pm. After being admitted there, they wiped the blood with cloths, bandaged it and the hospital authority demanded Rs.5 lakh for the surgery. To this, the 3rd and 4th respondents said that they could not afford Rs.5 lakhs rupees for the treatment. The complainant’s brother Krishna Chandran and the complainant asked the 3rd and 4th respondents to somehow take the complainant to the Government Rajaji Hospital in an ambulance. Then the 3rd respondent said that if the complainant go to Government Hospital, he will become a big police case and hence the 3rd and 4th respondents took him to another hospital. At 4 PM, they admitted the complainant to the Rajan Hospital near Mahabupalayam, Madurai, for treatment. There, the said Rajan hospital administration had asked the complainant to pay Rs.40,000/- and accordingly the complainant’s family painstakingly paid the said amount. After that, the bones that were broken in 13 places on his right thigh and leg were bandaged with plates. Therefore, the complainant prayed this Commission to award compensation and take appropriate action against the respondents.

33. Per contra, the case of the 1st and 2nd respondents is that the Investigation Officer has stated in his investigation report that since action is being taken through the police department and the court, action may be taken depending on the action taken by the court order. The case of the 3rd respondent is that he denied the allegations of the complainant. On 23-06-2021, the 4th respondent was allotted tree felling and other works on the 11 KV Industrial Estate power line. In the above other work, he has installed new power poles for the power line diversion using a crane. While the work was in progress, an accident occurred at around 2:00 pm and he was given first aid. The 3rd respondent have also personally visited the MIOT Hospital in the City on the advice of the 4th respondent. When the 3rd respondent enquired the 4th respondent regarding the accident on 23-06-2021, he said that he did not know the person who was involved in the accident. Further, the said Pancharaj had provided first aid at his own expenses on humanitarian grounds, even though he did not know the identity of the person who was involved in the accident and had also informed the 3rd respondent that he would inquire about the person who was involved in the accident and inform him of his details. On the request of the victim and his family members, the 4th respondent admitted the victim in Sri Rajan Ortho Hospital, Madurai for medical treatment and further treatment and the 4th respondent also provided treatment on humanitarian grounds at his own expenses. In such a situation, the complainant filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.1337/2021 in K. Puthur Police Station, Madurai City was registered on 23-06-2021. The complainant also filed a complaint with the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, seeking compensation and the case is pending as I.A. No.130/2023.

34. The case of the 4th respondent is that as per the verbal order received from his superior, on 23.06.2021 around 09.00 am, he properly planted an electric pole on the track as per the Electricity Board regulations and then was engaged in the tree cutting task assigned to him, cutting the branches of trees in the gap opposite the Kaliamman Temple electric track near Madurai Mattuthavani Bus Stand Vegetable Market, along with his colleagues. At around 1.50 pm, a passerby reported that an electric pole located in the industrial estate had collapsed and a youth was lying injured. When the 4th respondent immediately went to the scene, he found the complainant lying injured in the leg. The 4th respondent immediately informed his superior, Assistant Executive Engineer, over the phone. Thereafter, on humanitarian grounds, he immediately admitted the injured person to a nearby private MIOT HOSPITAL for treatment and then admitted him as an inpatient at Rajan Ortho Hospital. He provided medical assistance to the injured person on humanitarian grounds at his own expense and paid Rs.2,25,000 towards the medical expenses of the complainant and when he was discharged from the hospital, the 4th respondent also paid Rs.13,000 to the petitioner’s doctor.

35. It is further case of the 4th respondent is that despite paying the medical expenses, forgetting that the 4th respondent helped the complainant recover from his injury, he filed a complaint at the K.Puthur Police Station on 24.11.2021 with false information and a case was registered as Crime No.1337/2021 and the same is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-VI. The complainant also filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-(Fifty Lakhs) and the same is pending before Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. In this regard, the Executive Engineer of Madurai Metropolitan Circle (South) was also enquired on 05.01.2022 and submitted his enquiry report to the Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO. The complainant sent this complaint to this Commission with the intention of causing mental distress to the 4th respondent. Hence, he prayed this Commission to dismiss the complaint.

36. The complainant Tr.Vishnupriyan, in order to prove his case, he himself was examined as PW1 and reiterated the averments contained in the complaint filed by him. He also examined his mother Tmt.N.Andal, w/o Neethikannan as PW2. The complainant’s brother Tr.N.Krishnachandran was examined as PW3. The complainant also examined one P.Madhavan, s/o Pandi was examined PW4. One Selvapandi, s/o Venkatesan was examined as PW5. PW2 to PW5 were also supported the case of the complainant. On behalf of the complainant, nineteen documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.P1 to P19.

37. Likewise, on behalf of the respondents, the 3rd respondent Tr.Shanmuganatha Poobathy was examined as RW1 and he reiterated the averments contained in the counter statement filed by him. The 4th respondent Tr.Pancharaj was examined as RW2 and he also supported the case of the respondents. On the side of the respondents, they had filed 7 documents and the same were marked as Ex.R1 to R7.

38. Therefore, it is the duty of this Commission to decide whether the allegations of the complainant is true as alleged in his complaint and the respondents had violated the human rights of the complainant as alleged by him for the reasons stated in the complaint or not.

39. Before going into the merits of the case, it is very essential to mention the admitted facts of the parties. It is not in dispute that the incident took place on 23.06.2021. In this regard, on the complaint of the complainant, a case in Cr.No.1337/2021 under Section 338 IPC was registered in K. Pudur Police Station, Madurai City against the 3rd and 4th respondents and the same is pending before the court.

40. It is also not in dispute that the complainant is filed petition before the court of Commissioner of the Employees Compensation in Case No.130/2023 and the same is also pending. It is also not in dispute that the complainant preferred complaints to the higher officials and on the basis of the same, the enquiry was conducted by the TANGEDCO higher officials.

41. The complainant/PW1 Vishnupriyan filed proof affidavit and reiterated the averments contained in his complaint. PW1 also filed additional proof affidavit to prove his case. He deposed that as per the instruction of 3rd and 4th respondents the complainant and others attended the work on 23.06.2021. PW1 deposed that the 3rd respondent Tr.Shanmugabhupathi, told the complainant and others saying that some posts need to be installed urgently and forced the complainant to dig only 2 feet deep, pour concrete and complete the post installation work. PW1 further deposed that he could climb only after digging 5 feet deep, pouring concrete after 5 hours of time.

42. PW1 further deposed that at about 1.30 pm, a post was erected near Amma Mess near the Madurai District Court Arch and concrete was poured and another 10 minutes, the 4th respondent Tr.Pancharaj asked PW1 to climb the post. Accordingly, PW1 climbed the post and engaged in the connection work and at that time the above post was collapsed and the complainant fell from a height of 30 feet and the said post pole fell on him. Hence, PW1 caused injury and he was admitted in MIOT Hospital in K.K. Nagar at about 2 pm.

43. PW1 further deposed that they wiped the blood with cloths, bandaged it and the hospital authority demanded Rs.5 lakhs for the surgery, but the 3rd and 4th respondents informed that they could not afford Rs.5 lakhs for the treatment. He further deposed that he and his brother Krishna Chandran asked the 3rd and 4th respondents to somehow take him to the Government Rajaji Hospital in an ambulance. For that the 3rd and 4th respondents said that if the complainant goes to the Government Hospital, it will become a police case and hence the 3rd and 4th respondents took him to another private hospital. Thereafter, at about 4 PM, PW1 was admitted in Rajan Hospital, Madurai. The complainant’s family also paid Rs.40,000/- to the said hospital authority.

44. PW1 further deposed that the 3rd and 4th respondents informed him and his family not to express anything to anybody about the incident and they did not give any money to the hospital for his treatment and they went away. One Dr.Velmurugan from the said Rajan hospital again demanded Rs.60,000/- from the complainant and when requesting time to pay the said amount, the said doctor threatened him that if he did not pay the said amount of Rs.60,000/-, the plate, which was fixed on his thigh would be removed and send him out. After heavy financial constraints, PW1 was arranged and paid the said amount by lending loan amount from others.

45. PW1 further deposed that he gave complaint 11.08.2021 to the K.Pudur police station with regard to the said accident, which took place to him on 23.06.2021 and registered a case in Cr.No.1337/2021 under Section 338 IPC against the 3rd and 4th respondents. The copy of the FIR is marked as Ex.P7. He further deposed that the 3rd and 4th respondents misused their official powers towards the complainant and they did not discharge their duty in accordance with law and violated the human rights of the complainant.

46. PW1 further deposed that his bones were broken in 13 places on his right thigh and leg were bandaged with plates. Due to the said accident, he became a permanent disabled person, having 18% permanent disability for which the MCOP Medical Board, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai issued Medical Certificate and the copy of the same is marked as Ex.P19. It is seen from Ex.P19, the complainant/PW1 affected locomotor disability permanently. Therefore, PW1 prayed this Commission to take appropriate action against the 3rd and 4th respondents for committing violation of human rights of the complainant and award compensation to the complainant.

47. The complainant filed 19 documents and the same were marked as Ex.P1 to P19. Ex.P1 is the intimation regarding medico legal case issued by the Sri Rajan Ortho Hosptial, Madurai. Ex.P2 is the copy of discharge summary issued by the Sri Rajan Ortho Hosptial, Madurai. Ex.P3 to P6 are the copies of the complaints sent by the complainant to the various authorities for taking necessary action. Ex.P8 is the discharge summary issued by the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, Government Rajaji Hospital and Madurai Medical College, Madurai. Ex.P9 is the copy of X-Rays. Ex.P10 is the legal notice issued to the 3rd and 4th respondents. Ex.P11 is the copy of reply notice.

48. PW1 also produced the copy of the ID card belong to him and the same is marked as Ex.P12. It is seen from this document that PW1 is the member in Tamil Nadu Electricity Labour Central Organisation. Ex.P13, 14 and 15 is the photograph of PW1 showing his leg in accident. Ex.P16 is the copy of Aadhar belongs to PW2, who is the mother of PW1. Ex.P17 is the copy of PW1. Ex.P18 is the copy of the family ration card of PW1, PW2, etc.

49. PW1 was cross examined elaborately by the 3rd and 4th respondents separately. During the course of cross examination, it was admitted by PW1 that the said incident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 3rd and 4th respondents. Even though on the side of the 3rd and 4th respondents cross examined in a lengthy manner, no useful information was gathered in favour of them. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is an acceptable one and also his evidence inspires the confidence of this Commission.

50. The mother of PW1 Tmt.N.Andal, w/o Neethikannan was examined as PW2. She also supported the case of the complainant. During the course of cross examination, PW2 admitted that her son PW1 is working under Electricity Board for the past 6 years and he is having sufficient knowledge in this field. PW2 denied that the 4th respondent spent medical expenses for PW1 in the hospital. The complainant’s brother Tr.N.Krishnachandran was examined as PW3. One Tr.Madhavan, w/o Pandi was examined as PW4. Tr.Chellapandi, s/o Venkatesan was examined as PW5. PW2 to PW5 is supported the case of PW1. They also corroborated the evidence of PW1. Therefore, their evidences were also inspired the confidence of this Commission.

51. On the side of the respondents, it is an admitted fact that the 1st and the 2nd respondents are the formal parties. The 3rd respondent was filed proof affidavit and examined as RW1. He reiterated the averments contained in his counter statement. He deposed that the 4th respondent Tr. Pancharaj was allotted tree felling and other works on the 11KV Industrial Estate power line on 23-06-2021 and arranged to install new power poles using a crane. While the work was in progress, an accident occurred at around 2:00 pm and PW1 was admitted to the MIOT Hospital, Madurai for first aid. He also personally visited the spot.

52. RW1 further deposed that when he enquired with the 4th respondent about the complainant, he told that he not know about the complainant. The 4th respondent also told RW1 that although the person who was involved in the accident was not known to him, he provided first aid on humanitarian grounds at his own expenses. Even then, PW1 filed police complaint and registered FIR against RW1 and RW2. Moreover, the complainant has filed a petition seeking compensation with the Commissioner of Labour, Madurai and it is pending as 1.A. No. 130/2023.

53. During the course of cross examination, RW1 admitted that at the time of incident during June, 2021, the 3rd respondent Tr.K.Shanmugaboopathy was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in TANGEDCO in K.K. Nagar, Madurai and the 4th respondent Tr.C.Pancharaj was working as Line Inspector under the 3rd respondent. He denied the suggestion putforth by the complainant that during June, 2021, the temporary workers were engaged in work. He further denied the suggestion that PW1, PW3, PW4 & PW5 were not engaged on contract workers. He admitted that on information received from the 4th respondent, he visited the place of occurrence at about 2 PM. He further admitted that he visited the hospital and saw the injured PW1 at the first time in the hospital. He further denied the other suggestions putforth by the counsel for the complainant that they refused to give Rs.5 lakhs as demanded by the hospital authorities for the treatment of PW1.
54. The 4th respondent/Tr.Pancharaj was filed proof affidavit and examined as RW2. He also reiterated the averments contained in the counter statement filed by him. He also supported the case of RW1. He deposed that he spent Rs.2,25,000/- towards the treatment for PW1 in Rajan Ortho Hospital. He also filed the bills for the same and the same is marked as Ex.R2. Moreover, RW2 gave Rs.13,000/- by cash to PW2, who is the mother of PW1. Even though RW2 produced the copy of the medical bills marked as Ex.R7, which was incurred for the treatment of PW1, the same was denied by the complainant.

55. I have scrutinized the evidences of RW1 and RW2 in a careful manner. Both RW1 and RW2 admitted that the incident took place and they know about the same. RW2 also spent money more than Rs.2.25 lakhs for the medical expenses of PW1. On the side of the 3rd and 4th respondents, 7 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.R1 to R7. Ex.R1 is the copy of FIR in Cr.No.1337/2021 in K.Pudur police station registered against RW1 and RW2. Ex.R2 is the copy of duties and responsibility of AEEs/O&M issued by the office of Chief Eningeer/Distribution, Trichy Region, TANGEDCO. Ex.R3 is the copy of duties and responsibilities of RWE, Assessment, Collection & Revenue Branch Staff. Ex.R4 is the copy the notice in IA No.130/2023 in the court of the Commissioner of the Employee’s Compensation. Ex.R5 is the copy of ID card pertaining to RW2. Ex.R6 is the duty roaster of TANGEDCO staffs. Ex.R7 is the copies of the medical bills pertaining to PW1.

56. Both the parties argued elaborately. The complainant argued that he was employed by the 4th respondent and on his direction, he climbed a electric pole and the respondents compelled him to erect the pole immediately and he sustained 18% permanent disability. Due to this incident, he could not attend his day to day life in a routine manner and he is suffering a lot to lead his life. He has also caused heavy loss financially, mentally and physically a lot due to the negligence on the part of the 3rd and 4th respondents in their official duty.

57. Per contra, the 3rd and 4th respondents argued that they do not know about the complainant earlier. The 4th respondent spent Rs.2,25,000/- towards the treatment of PW1 on a humanitarian grounds. He also gave Rs.13,000/- to PW2, who is the mother of PW1. The 3rd and 4th respondents further argued that they had not violated any of the human rights of the complainant. They further argued that the complainant himself by carelessness the accident had happened to him and hence they have not responsible for the same.

58. I have perused the entire materials available on record. This Commission on receiving the complaint from the complainant, called for a detailed report from the Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO. Accordingly, the Superintendenting Engineer, i/c, Madurai Elecy. Distn. Circle/Metro, K. Puduur, Madurai-7 submitted the enquiry report dated 08.02.2023 to this Commission. In the said report, it is stated that the version taken by the 2nd respondent that he do not know the complainant is totally false. The exact vernacular stated in the report is as follows:-
. . . . vdnt ä‹ghij MŒths® jdJ th¡F_y¤Âš òfh® kDjhuiu jd¡F bjçahJ v‹W«, òfh® kDjhuiu ä‹f«g« C‹W« gâ¡F jh‹ miH¤J¢ bršyéšiy v‹W«, ég¤J elªj rka¤Âš mªj Ïl¤Âš jh‹ Ïšiy v‹W«, cjé bra‰bgh¿ahs® ég¤J F¿¤J ifngÁ thæyhf jd¡F¤ jftš brh‹dh® v‹W«, mj‹ ÃwF r«gt Ïl¤Â‰F jh‹ tªjjhfÎ« bjçé¤JŸs étu§fŸ érhuizæš ã%gz« Mféšiy v‹gjhš kW¡f¥gL»wJ.

Therefore, it is proved that the complainant attended the work with fullest knowledge of the respondents 3 and 4 and hence the argument of the respondents 3 and 4 is summarily rejected.
59. Therefore, it is seen from the materials on record that the complainant was working as stated in his complaint and while climbing the electric pole, the same fell on him and caused permanent disability as stated by the doctors in Ex.P19. It is also established from the report of the submitted by the TANGEDCO that with the full knowledge of the respondents 3 and 4, the fatal incident was occurred. If the 3rd and 4th respondents properly monitored the work of the complainant with proper care and cautious manner, the same would not have been occurred. Therefore, the defence taken by the 3rd and 4th respondents that they do not know the complainant earlier and they attended their duty in a careful manner and there is no negligence in attending their duty is not correct and the same is rejected.

60. It is also seen from the medical records produced by the complainant that he is continuously taking treatments in private and government hospitals and spent more money for his treatment and caused permanent disability having 18% and the same is proved by Ex.P19. Now the situation of the complainant is very grave one. Due to the above said accident, now he is permanently disabled person and the pain, suffering and mental agony being undergone by the complainant can neither be estimated nor compensated. Accidents are source of violations of human rights and mainly fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the duty of the Government to see that the fundamental rights of the citizens are protected or guarded. The actions of the officials should not be the cause of violation of the basic rights of the citizens. Therefore, they should be very vigilant and not negligent in performing their sovereign functions as they are coming under the definition of State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Negligence by the officials would cause havoc in one’s life is best evident from the facts of the present case.

61. A medical study “Social, Sexual and Personal Implications of Paraplegia” made by Colette Ray, B.A., Ph.D. and Julia West, B.a, Department of Psychology, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB, U.K., reported in Paraplegia 22 (1984) 75-86 gives the implications of Paraplegia. The relevant paragraph of the report are as follows:-
“Social implications PHYSICAL DISABILITY has been described as a ‘stigma’, a term which refers to any attribute which marks its possessor as different from others, discredits him or her and disqualifies the person from a full participation in society (Goffman, 1963; Katz, 1981). As part of the process of stigma tis at ion there is a tendency to ‘typify’ the whole person on the basis of the attribute in question. Thus, the disabled person will find that his or her social identity has been redefined in terms of the disability (Rubington and Weinberg, 1973) and, furthermore, that this redefinition results in some degree of social exclusion and rejection. Attitudes towards the disabled are ambivalent. On the one hand there exists a positive prejudice. People are often protective, helpful and considerate in their behaviour, and rate the disabled in favourable terms (Kleck, 1968; Mussen and Barker, 1944). On the other hand, disability can be a source of distress and embarrassment for the able-bodied; people often avoid contact with the disabled and are critical towards them (Kleck, 1968; Piliavin et al., 1975; Snyder et al., 1979; Tringo, 1970). Our self perception depends in part upon the image that we are seen to have in the eyes of others (Mead, 1934) and the disabled person may come to accept the typification imposed or, if they are rejected by others, may introject this evaluation and value their own worth more negatively”

Therefore, the complainant’s sufferings a lot and he is also considered as a permanently disabled person due to the accident occurred to him. Ex.P19 proved the same.

62. It is also pertinent to be noted that there have been numerous complaints received by this Commission that the officers and employees of the Electricity Board (TANGEDCO) are being asked to do their work at the time of need, such as to climb the electricity pole or other works for their convenience, but they escape while any accident or mishap occurred during the course of work. In such cases, when the concerned officials of TANGEDCO are enquired, they simply submit that the work done by the persons, who did the work on their own, without obtaining any prior permission from the Board. Moreover, they also simply inform this Commission that there is no provision in the Board rules to provide any compensation to persons who are not employees of the Board or contract labours in case of accident or mishap. Such incidents should be avoided in the future. For this, the CMD should issue appropriate orders and instructions to the lower level officers.

63. The complainant sent this complaint against the public authority to take suitable action and award appropriate compensation to him since due to the negligence of the 3rd and 4th respondents, he permanently disabled. As per Section 18(a)(i) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, this Commission shall inquire on a petition presented by a victim for the violation of human rights of the victim/complainant. Therefore, this complaint is maintainable in law and the complainant is entitled to get compensation.

64. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that it is the duty of the government to enshrine the right to life and liberty of the every citizen. But, as far as the case on hand is concerned, his life is paralyzed due to the above said incident and the subordinate employees of the 3rd respondent failed to do their official duty in a careful manner and hence the complainant lost his liberty in life and permanently disabled in the Society.

65. As rightly established by the materials on record, the said electric pole was maintained by the TANGEDCO only. Due to the urgency and without following basic minds applied by the 3rd and 4th respondents, the electric pole was fell on the complainant and caused injuries, for which the complainant is suffering a lot, which is highly affected the human rights of the complainant. Therefore, this Commission has got every jurisdiction under 12(a)(ii) & 18(a)(i) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to try this complaint before this Commission.

66. Considering the records available on hand, it is categorically established that the complainant is suffering a lot due to the negligence on the part of the 3rd and 4th respondents of TANGEDCO as discussed above. It is also proved by Ex.P19 that the complainant is a permanently disabled having 18% of disability and therefore, the complainant is considered as a permanently disabled person as discussed above. Therefore, on behalf of the 3rd and 4th Respondents, the Government of Tamil Nadu is vicariously liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to the complainant N.Vishnu Priyan, s/o S.Needhi Kannan. As far as the 1st and 2nd respondents are concerned, they are the formal parties in this case. This Point is answered accordingly.

Point No.II:
67. While answering the Point No.1, it is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdiction, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to receive compensation for the violation of human rights and fixing of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation would be fair and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence, this Commission is of the considered view that the complainant N.Vishnupriyan is entitled to receive compensation and fixing of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) would be fair and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. This Point is also answered accordingly.

68. In the result, this Commission recommends as follows:-
(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to the complainant/PW1 Thiru.N.Vishnu Priyan, S/o S.Needhi Kannan within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation;

(ii) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall instruct the Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO to issue appropriate advises and guidelines to his subordinate officers throughout the State of Tamil Nadu to strictly follow the instructions while employing the Electricity Board work especially pole work by outside workers very cautiously in future; and

(iii) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall instruct the Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO should monitor the same periodically to avoid such irresponsible activities of TANGEDCO officials in future.
Sd/-
MEMBER

Complainants’ side witness:

PW1 : Tr.Vishnu Priyan

PW2 : Tmt.N.Andal

PW3 : Tr.N.Krishnachandran

PW4 : Tr.Madhavan

PW5 : Tr.Selvapandi

Respondents’ side witness:

RW1 : Tr.Shanmuganadha Boopathy

RW2 : Tr.Pancharaj

Complainant’s side documents (Exhibits):

Ex.P1 : Copy of intimation regarding medico legal case issued by the Sri Rajan Ortho Hosptial, Madurai

Ex.P2 : Copy of discharge summary issued by the Sri Rajan Ortho Hospital, Madurai

Ex.P3 : Copy of complaint sent by the complainant to the DGP Chennai

Ex.P4
:
Copy of complaint sent by the complainant to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City

Ex.P5
:
Copy of complaint sent by the complainant to the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Energy Department, Fort St. George, Chennai

Ex.P6
:
Copy of complaint sent by the complainant to the Superntendenting Engineer, TANGEDCO, Madurai

Ex.P7
:
Copy of FIR in Cr.No.1337/2021

Ex.P8
:
Copy of the discharge summary issued by the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, Government Rajaji Hospital and Madurai Medical College, Madurai

Ex.P9
:
Copy of X-Rays

Ex.P10 : Copy of the legal notice issued to the 3rd and 4th respondents

Ex.P11
:
Copy of reply notice

Ex.P12
:
Copy of ID Card of PW1

Ex.P13
:
Photographs of PW1

Ex.P14
:
Photographs of PW1

Ex.P15
:
Photographs of PW1

Ex.P16
:
Adhar copy of PW2

Ex.P17
:
Adhar copy of PW1

Ex.P18 : Family card copy of PW2

Ex.P19
:
Disability Certificate of PW1

Respondents’ side documents (Exhibits)