IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RFA.No. 270 of 2006()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.MANI, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. M.PRASEEDA, AGED 19 YEARS,
3. M.PRADEEPA, AGED 17 YEARS,
4. M.PRADEESH, AGED 15 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN(SR.)SC,KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.N.SUKUMARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :28/10/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
R.F.A.No.270 OF 2006
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.The first defendant in a suit for compensation is the appellant.
It is the licensee for supply of electrical energy in the State of
Kerala. The appellant Kerala State Electricity Board and two
of its officers were sued on account of the death of Kumari, a
female, who died on 25.2.2001, leaving behind her husband, a
daughter aged 19 years and two minors who are then aged 17
and 15, of which, one is a female. The minor son also suffered
injuries. The family also lost a cow in the incident.
2.An electric line was ultimately found hanging, to which, the
cow or deceased Kumari came into contact and later, her
minor son Pradeesh also came into contact. This is how the
incident had occurred.
RFA.270/06
2
3.KSEB set up a defence that the incident occurred when a
snapped dead conductor hanging from a post got entangled
with a cow which was grassing in a field and due to the
pressure exerted by the cow, the dead conductor came into
contact accidentally with a live wire on the opposite side of the
electric post and got electrocuted. According to the defence,
deceased Kumari, who was grassing the cow, attempted to
save the animal and that led to her electrocution. Obviously,
the son would have attempted to save the mother and thus he
also suffered.
4.Taking into consideration the different aspects of the matter,
including the deposition of DW1, the then Assistant Engineer
of the Board, the court below found that the defendants are
liable to compensate the plaintiffs. We read the deposition of
DW1, the Assistant Engineer. He candidly states that there
was even a departmental enquiry following the accident, in
which, the officials were found to be guilty and increments
were barred.
RFA.270/06
3
5.With the aforesaid, we also find formidable support in the
judgment of the Apex Court in M.P.Electricity Board v. Shail
Kumari [2002(1) KLT 480], wherein, the principle of ‘strict
liability’ was applied even in a case where the licensee took
the stand that the electricity accident was a result of
negligence of third parties. For the aforesaid reasons, we
affirm the findings of the court below regarding negligence.
6.On to the question of compensation, the court below took that
deceased Kumari, who was a construction worker, would have
a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. Her age was appropriately
determined and compensation fixed. The only plea urged
before us, in challenge to this, is that the sole material
available before the court below was Ext.A3, which is a
certificate issued by the District Executive Officer of the
Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Fund
Board, which shows that Kumari was a member of the Fund.
That document is a statutory order issued by the competent
authority. It goes a long way in unequivocally establishing
RFA.270/06
4
that Kumari was a building construction worker. It also shows
that she was a member of the Fund. Obviously therefore, the
court below could not be found fault with for having
determined her income at Rs.3,000/-. She was also a house
wife even going by the defence version that she was grassing a
cow. The judgment of the court below clearly analysed all
attendant relevant situations in determining the compensation.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the quantum of
compensation fixed by the court below also.
7.For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this appeal. However,
we desist from issuing any order of costs against the
appellants.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN,
Judge.
kkb.29/10.