Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Minor Sonia represented by her grand-mother Rajammal has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to her as compensation for the injury suffered by her on 31-5-96 due to the telephone cable installed by the respondents 1 and 2 coming into contact with the High tension electricity wires belonging to the third respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :- Minor Sonia is under the care and protection of her grand-mother, namely, Rajammal. The minor is presently aged 4 years and has been residing with her at No. 23, V.O.C. First Street (Cross) Nehru Nagar, Erancheri, Chennai, 118. Rajammal applied for a telephone under the "own your own" telephone scheme and paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the connection. On 25-5-96 the subordinates of the 2nd respondent herein installed her telephone bearing No. 5570499. She had objected to the line-men drawing the telephone cable through her back door. She also pointed out the potential danger as the telephone line had been drawn very near to the existing High Tension electricity cables carrying 11 K. V. electricity. The Supervisor in-charge of installing her telephone agreed that the telephone line was dangerously close to the electric cable and agreed to re-draw the telephone line through the front entrance of her house. Accordingly, on 31-5-96 the employees of the Telephone Department came to her residence and informed her that they were going to disconnect her telephone line and re-install it through the front entrance. At about 4.30 p.m. on 31-5-97 the line-men were disconnecting the telephone line from the telephone post that is located behind her house and while removing the same the telephone cable came into contact with the High Tension line carrying 11 K. V. electricity. 3. It is further stated that due to her misfortune, the telephone cable came into contact with the overhead High Tension electric cable and immediately the telephone cable caught fire. There was a loud sound and the next instant, she could hear her grand-daughter, the petitioner herein, screaming and crying. She found her grand-daughter Sonia lying on the floor of the bed-room with her clothes completely burnt. The right side of her body was completely burnt and she was in a shock. There was a loud sound and the next instant, she could hear her grand-daughter, the petitioner herein, screaming and crying. She found her grand-daughter Sonia lying on the floor of the bed-room with her clothes completely burnt. The right side of her body was completely burnt and she was in a shock. At a glance, she was able to see that the telephone cable leading to the telephone was burnt and smoke was being emitted from the instrument. There were burn marks along the wall and the window of the room through which the telephone line had been drawn. On enquiry, the line-men who came to the scene informed her that in all probability the child had been holding on the metal bars of the window or had been in contact with the wall and that the electricity that had passed through the telephone cable as a result of the telephone cable coming into contact with the electric over-head wires had electrocuted her. Immediately she rushed the minor petitioner to a local doctor, who administered First Aid and referred them to Child Trust Hospital, Nungambakkam and the petitioner had to undergo treatment for 25 days. The petitioner was completely disfigured due to the burn injuries and had to undergo plastic surgery and skin grafting. The petitioner's right shoulder is also permanently affected as a result of the burns. But for the negligence of the subordinates of the 2nd respondent, the gruesome accident could have been avoided and the minor petitioner would not have undergone such a traumatic experience at such a tender age. The accident was a direct result of the negligence and utter disregard exhibited by the subordinates of the 2nd respondent in not having taken proper precaution in ensuring that the telephone cable did not come into contact with the existing over-head High Tension line. The third respondent equally owes a duty to the public to make necessary safeguards to ensure that the High Tension lines do not come into contact with any inflammable materials. Immediately after the accident, she gave a complaint to Kodangaiyur Police Station, who registered a complaint under Section 328, I.P.C. in F.I.R. No. 586 of 1996. Except for registering a complaint, no action has been taken in the matter. So far the petitioner spent a sum of Rs. 26,000/- towards treatment and nearly Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance. Immediately after the accident, she gave a complaint to Kodangaiyur Police Station, who registered a complaint under Section 328, I.P.C. in F.I.R. No. 586 of 1996. Except for registering a complaint, no action has been taken in the matter. So far the petitioner spent a sum of Rs. 26,000/- towards treatment and nearly Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance. Even now they require money for medical treatment. For making representation as well as for the legal notice dated 1-10-97, since no other remedy, has filed the above writ petition. 4. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that Mrs. N. Rajammal, wife of Periasamy, residing at No. 23, V.O.C. First Cross Street, Nehru Nagar, Erukkanch, Chennai-11 had applied for new phone connection under Tatkal Scheme. There was shortage of cable pair at the said address. Because of the pressure given by the petitioner, feasibility report was given by the concerned Exchange Executive Authorities. As soon as order was issued for the installation of new telephone and intimation sent to the petitioner, the petitioner pressurised the Department for immediate installation of the telephone connection. She never objected for taking telephone cable below the electricity line. The telephone line was installed on 25-5-96 by using well insulated drop wire approved by the Department and the over-head line crossed the power line maintaining a over-head clearance of more than 5 feet, i.e., the telephone line was taken below the electricity line with a vertical clearance of more than 5 feet. The department is not aware of any such accident as alleged by the petitioner. The respondent-department came to know of the accident after the information given to the Department and electric short circuit was not known. The petitioner had installed her own cordless telephone in parallel with the Department instrument without proper permission from the Department and A/c power supply was fed to the cordless telephone by her own arrangement, which could have caused electric shock and burning of the instrument. The accident was not caused by the Departmental subordinate staff as they were allotted different work on 31-5-96 as evidenced by Stores Issue Register. The subordinate staff or respondents 1 and 2 are in no way responsible for the electric shock and hence not liable to pay compensation as sought for by the petitioner. 5. The accident was not caused by the Departmental subordinate staff as they were allotted different work on 31-5-96 as evidenced by Stores Issue Register. The subordinate staff or respondents 1 and 2 are in no way responsible for the electric shock and hence not liable to pay compensation as sought for by the petitioner. 5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 6. On the basis of the pleadings narrated above, elaborate arguments were advanced by all the parties concerned. In order to ascertain the nature of injuries, as directed, the minor girl Sonia was brought before this Court and I verified the burn injuries suffered by her. Regarding negligence as well as quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is having ample evidence to substantiate the same. Since both the above aspects have to be considered on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and oral and documentary evidence, this Court appointed Mr. S. Jayaraman, former Additional Registrar (Administration) of this Court and now practising Advocate as Arbitrator to decide the claim for compensation made by the petitioner. The said course was agreed to by both sides. The Arbitrator after affording adequate opportunity to all the parties concerned found that the minor Sonia sustained injuries due to the negligence and carelessness of the staff of the respondents 1 and 2 herein; accordingly quantified the compensation at Rs. 88,000/- with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the writ petition till the date of realisation. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the Award of the Arbitrator holding that respondents 1 and 2 are responsible for the accident and the award of Rs. 88,000/- is reasonable or not? 8. After taking me through the Award of the Arbitrator, Mr. G. Jermiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Arbitrator ought to have awarded some more amount towards Transport Charges. He further contended that the Arbitrator ought to have fixed more compensation considering the nature of injuries suffered by the minor. On the other hand, Mr. M. S. Palanisamy, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that there is no direct acceptable evidence regarding negligence; accordingly the conclusion of the Arbitrator on this aspect cannot be accepted. On the other hand, Mr. M. S. Palanisamy, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that there is no direct acceptable evidence regarding negligence; accordingly the conclusion of the Arbitrator on this aspect cannot be accepted. In any event, according to him, in the absence of any positive medical evidence for future Surgery award of Rs. 60,000/- towards future medical expense is not warranted. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 10. Before the Arbitrator, Thirumathi Rajammal, grand-mother of the victim was examined as P.W. 1 and one Selvi P. Susila Rani was examined as P.W. 2. Apart from the above oral evidence, Exs. A-1 to A-49 were marked in support of her claim. On the side of the Telephone Department, one D. Kumaresan, S.D.E., Telephones, Madhava-ram was examined as R.W. 1 and Exs. R. 1 to R. 4 were also marked in support of their defence. Coming to the negligence aspect it is seen from the Award of the Arbitrator that the manner and the sequence of the accident that occurred on 31-5-96 is explained by Rajammal as P.W. 1 and corroborated by Susila Rani as P.W. 2. As per the application made by Rajammal, grand-mother of the minor girl, for installation of telephone, on 25-5-96, the Telephone Departmental staff came to the premises to instal the telephone. It is further seen that the telephone connection was actually given by drawing the telephone line from the rear side of the house on 25-5-96 from the existing pole below the H.T. lines leaving 5 feet gap. It is also clear from the proceedings of the Arbitrator that all the parties have admitted the fact of rear side connection crossing H.T. power line. It is further seen from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that the Telephone staff came to the house again on 31-5-96 at about 4.30 p.m., to dismantle the then existing connection and re-lay the telephone line from the front side. They were permitted to proceed with the work and they went to the upstairs of the house to dismantle the line. At that time, there was a loud sound and the minor Sonia was heard crying in the bed room. They were permitted to proceed with the work and they went to the upstairs of the house to dismantle the line. At that time, there was a loud sound and the minor Sonia was heard crying in the bed room. On rushing to the bed room, P.W. 1 found the room full of smoke and the minor child lying on the floor of the house unconscious with her clothes on the right side completely burnt. She then took the child to the local hospital and thereafter on their reference to the Child Trust Hospital, Nungambakkam, Chennai. No doubt, Police complaint Ex. A.1 was given six days after the accident. A careful perusal of the oral evidence of R. W. 1 shows that it does not support the case placed by the respondents 1 and 2. Even though it is stated on the side of the respondents 1 and 2 that no staff was deputed to the disputed premises on 31-5-96, as rightly observed by the Arbitrator, they did not substantiate the same by producing acceptable documentary evidence. After considering the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, and R. W. 2 as well as documents placed and also after visiting the premises and after noticing the minor girl, the Arbitrator came to the conclusion that some electrical accident had occurred on 31-5-96 in the premises in question. It is also clear from the evidence that without proper intimation to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/third respondent herein, dismantling the telephone line was done by the staff of the respondents 1 and 2 and while doing so, in view of the contact of the telehone line with the H.T. power line, the minor girl who was in the room at the relevant time near the telephone, sustained burn injuries. It is also clear that respondents 1 and 2 have not observed safety precautions while removing the telephone line. As rightly observed by the Arbitrator had they taken sufficient precautions at the time of dismantling and re-laying the line from the front side, the accident could have been avoided. It is also clear that respondents 1 and 2 have not observed safety precautions while removing the telephone line. As rightly observed by the Arbitrator had they taken sufficient precautions at the time of dismantling and re-laying the line from the front side, the accident could have been avoided. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner has established that the fire accident had occurred due to the telephone wire touching the H.T. power line when the staff of the Telephone Department dismantled the said telephone wire and the accident was due to the negligence and carelessness of the staff of the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Accordingly, I concur with the conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator. 11. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. It is seen from the Award proceedings that the Arbitrator while making a local inspection in the presence of counsel on both sides on 19-6-99, noted the injuries in the form of scars suffered by the minor girl. He has noted that the right side of the body of the minor reveals extensive bone scars. He also noticed no permanent disability in the movement of arms except the extensive marks of burn injuries on the right side from the armpit up to the hip. In support of the treatment at Child Trust Hospital, expenses for medicine, room rent, surgical charges etc., they have produced Exs. A-2, A-4, A-5, A-7 to A-11, A-13, A-15, A-17 to A-20, A-22, A-24, A-26 to A-31 to A-41. The medical expenses, as evidenced by these Exhibits, come to Rs. 24,477.06. Apart from the said documents, PW 1, Grand-mother of the minor girl also explained the expenses spent. Accordingly, the Arbitrator has fixed the amount towards medical expenses and rounded of the same to Rs. 25,000.00. No serious argument was advanced for seeking enhancement of the said claim. After taking note of the fact that minor girl was admitted in the hospital on 31-5-1996 and discharged only on 24-6-1996, the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 towards transport charges to the hospital which is quite reasonable and fair even though the petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 18,000.00 under the said head. Learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed for higher compensation under this head. 3,000.00 towards transport charges to the hospital which is quite reasonable and fair even though the petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 18,000.00 under the said head. Learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed for higher compensation under this head. In the absence of any acceptable evidence, I do not find any ground to award more amount as claimed. 12. Under the head pain and sufferings the petitioner had claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and under permanent psychological damage and trauma she has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00. Taking note of the period of treatment, nature of injuries suffered, I am of the view that the child would have definitely suffered the pain and there can be no doubt about this. Considering all the above aspects, and also taking note of the fact that the child being a female, she may face some difficulty at the time of her marriage even if the plastic surgery is performed. The Arbitrator had fixed a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 under the abovesaid two claims (claim Nos. 6 and 7). I agree with the conclusion of the Arbitrator. 13. Regarding expenses to be incurred on account of future surgery, as recommended by Dr. Mathangi Ramakrishnan, Consultant Plastic Surgeon, though the petitioner has claimed Rs. 2 lakhs on various heads, in view of the non-examination of the doctor concerned to explain the need, the Arbitrator, based on the certificate Exhibit A. 46 issued by the said doctor, had fixed a sum of Rs. 60,000.00. Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel has raised an objection for awarding the said amount towards future medical expenses. I have already stated that the Arbitrator has personally verified the victim and noted her burn injuries. Taking note of this and in the light of the medical certificate Exhibit A. 46, issued by the Plastic Surgeon, I concur with the conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator. 14. Though the Arbitrator has suggested an amount of Rs. 60,000.00 to be spent for future medical expenses and made some directions for investing the said amount in Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Bank, in the light of the suggestion opinion offered by Dr. K. Mathangi Ramakrishnan, I am unable to accept the same. In Ex. A. 46, Dr. 60,000.00 to be spent for future medical expenses and made some directions for investing the said amount in Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Bank, in the light of the suggestion opinion offered by Dr. K. Mathangi Ramakrishnan, I am unable to accept the same. In Ex. A. 46, Dr. K. Mathangi Ramakrishnan after narrating the nature of injuries, period of treatment etc., has suggested in the last para as follows : "She needs respected surgery and skin grafting in stages." Even though the said doctor has not been examined in support of the opinion offered by her, there is no reason to reject the certificate (Ex. A. 46) issued by her. Further, P.W. 1 grand-mother of the minor girl has explained the need for further treatment, surgery and skin grafting. As stated earlier, I had an occasion to verify the injuries sustained by the minor girl at the time of hearing of the writ petition. I am also of the opinion that in order to set-right the damages and injuries caused to her skin, surgery and skin grafting have to be done in stages. Hence there is no need to keep the amount of Rs. 60,000.00 in Fixed Deposit and the same may be paid to the grand-mother of the minor petitioner to meet the future expenses as stated above. 15. In the light of what is stated above I hereby pass the following order : i. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,48,000.00 (Rupees one lakh and forty eight thousand only) as compensation to the minor petitioner represented by her grand-mother Rajammal with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the writ petition i.e. 3-12-1997 till date of payment subject to the right of the respondents 1 and 2 to deduct Rs. 25,000.00 which was paid in pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 27-3-1999 : ii. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs. 5,000.00 which was deposited by the respondents 1 and 2 in pursuance of the order of this Court. iii. Respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to adjust the amounts already paid/deposited: iv. In addition to this, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand only) towards remuneration by way of cheque or Demand Draft to the Arbitrator Mr. iii. Respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to adjust the amounts already paid/deposited: iv. In addition to this, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand only) towards remuneration by way of cheque or Demand Draft to the Arbitrator Mr. S. Jayaraman within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. Petition allowed.