IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 80 of 1996(A)
1. K.S.E.BOARD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AYYAPPAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN S.C K.S.E.B
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.BALAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :10/09/2009
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
A.S.No.80 of 1996
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 10th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Appellants are the defendants. The suit was filed
by the respondents for compensation for death of late Janaki
who died due to electrocution. Respondents 1 to 5 are the
legal heirs of late Smt. Janaki. The suit was filed claiming
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.
2. The trial court decreed the suit in a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- with 6 percent interest from the date of the suit
till realisation against the appellants. It is aggrieved by the
same that this appeal is filed.
3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. The case
of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:
On 23.3.1990 late Smt.Janaki was returning from
Vyttila Kayal along with her neighbor Cheria after fishing from
the kayal. They were returning with a catch of prawns.
AS No.80/1996 -2-
Aluminium power line drawn by the Ist appellant over the
public road had broken and fallen and coiled around the body
of late Janaki and she died due to electrocution. She suffered
excruciating agony for 10 minutes. It is the case that electric
over head wire passing through the road was in touch with
the coconut tree planted in front of House No.28/2687 and
there were sparklings frequently with the leaves of the
coconut tree as it was in contact with the electric wire
conductor. The 2nd appellant and his subordinates were
alleged to be negligent in cutting and removing the touchings
of the power line. It is stated that late Janaki was aged 50
years and a very healthy woman and she could live upto the
age of 75. It is the case of the respondents that the sons and
daughters of deceased Janaki were studying in colleges and
the only income of the family was the income of late Janaki.
It is accordingly that the claim was laid for damages on
account of loss of consortium, pain and suffering, loss of
earnings and future earnings and all the known heads of
general damages. It is stated that the respondents are
entitled to several lakhs of rupees but they are limiting their
AS No.80/1996 -3-
claims to Rs.2,50,000/-.
4. Appellants disputed the claim by raising the
following plea inter alia. The line was not at all touching
cudjan of coconut tree in front of House No.28/2687. They
were not negligent in cutting the cudjans or maintaining the
line. On 22.3.1990 there was a heavy wind and storm and
cudjans fell on the electric line resulting breaking of the
conductor. The Electrical Inspector had inspected the site
and obtained statements from the public.
5. The trial court relied on Ext.X1. Ext.X1 is the
report of the Electrical Inspector. The report was made after
inspecting the electric line and apparently after conducting
enquiry. The deposition of the inspector who was examined
as Pw4 was also relied on and the trial court found that there
was negligence on the part of the appellants in maintaining
the line. Thereafter, noting that the claim raised by the
plaintiffs was exaggerated, but, finding that the respondents
are entitled to reasonable amount for the negligence and
considering all aspects the trial court awarded Rs.1,50,000/-
with interest at 6 percent from the date of the suit till
AS No.80/1996 -4-
realisation.
6. As far as the question of negligence is
concerned we are of the view that the finding of the trial court
is only to be affirmed. Admittedly, the lady died due to
electrocution when she came into contact with the electric
wire. Ext.X1 is the report made by the Electric Inspector. In
fact, reference was made by the appellants in the written
statement to the report made by the inspector and the enquiry
conducted by him. In Ext.X1 it is found that the appellants
are responsible for the accident. There is reference to
violation of Rule 91 and Rule 29 of the Indian Electricity Rules,
1956. It is noted that no section fuse was provided for
servicing the line. In Ext.X1 is is stated inter alia as under:
“IV Persons responsible and how far they are
responsible for the accident:
1. The constant rubbing of the coconut leaves
with the LT line has resulted in snaping of the
phase conductor, which lead to the accident.
Hence the KSEB may be held responsible for
this accident, for not clearing the tree-
touchings in the line promptly and also for not
providing R91 protection for the lines. Proper-
section fuse also was not provided for this line
which also helped for this accident.
AS No.80/1996 -5-
The owner of the house Sri.A.Hafees has
planted a coconut tree very close to the
LT.line. The cudjan of the tree was constantly
rubbing with the LT line and it is informed that
the same conductor had snapped earlier due to
this regular rubbing with the live phase
conductor. No attempt is seen made by
Sri.Hafees to shift the tree to a location so that
the cudjan is not rubbing with the phase
conductor. To this extent, that planting a
coconut tree very close to the KSEB line,
Sri.Hafees has violated the provisions of
Telegraph Act and the same had also
contributed to the snapping of the conductor.
The Board authorities also would have
taken severe actions against such planting. If
the coconut trees was not planted and kept in
that location the snapping of the conductor
and the accident would have avoided. There
was no protection as envisaged under Rule 91
of IER 1956 for the L.T.Line. The Board
authorities would have erected, at least the
new lines as per rules.”
7. The Electrical Inspector has been examined as
Pw4 and nothing is brought out to question the veracity of the
witness or the correctness of his reasoning and conclusions.
Therefore, we are of the firm view that the finding of
negligence on the part of the appellants in the matter of
maintaining line is clearly established.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants would then
AS No.80/1996 -6-
submit that the amount of compensation awarded is
unjustified.
9. No doubt, a perusal of the reasoning would
show that the court below has not done the calculation of
compensation under various heads. But, we note that there is
evidence in the form of deposition of Pw1 and Pw2 and
learned counsel for the respondents also emphasise that the
deceased was engaged in fishing prawns. Going by the
evidence she would get a quantity of nearly 3 kgs. of prawns,
and, she could, according to the learned counsel for the
respondents, be expected to earn a sum of Rs.300/- per day.
10. Even if we break up the compensation under
various heads we would think that the quantum arrived at by
the court below may not justify interference. If we award a
sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection,
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, another sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and then considering
even most reasonable loss of dependency of Rs.1,000/- per
month and applying multiplier at 10, the amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- would stand justified. Therefore, we do not
AS No.80/1996 -7-
think that it is a fit case to interfere with the conclusion as to
the quantum by the court below in the facts of this case. In
such circumstances, the appeal is found meritless and it is
dismissed with costs.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS