IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008/ AS.No. 279 of 2001 ( ) ---------------------- OS.75/1996 of SUB COURT, PALA APPELLANT(S): ------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHIBHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, ERATTUPETTA 3. VARKEY @ JOY, LINE MAN, KSEB (AMBARA AREA), ERATTUPETTA. BY ADVS.SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): -------------- (*)1. KESAVAN @ MONEY, S/O.GOVINDAN, VALARIMAKKAL HOUSE, MELAMPARAKARA, THALAPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL (R1.DIED. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES IMPLEADED) 2. PENNAMMA, W/O. MONEY, DO .. DO .. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI 4. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION DISTRICT, PULICKENS BUILDING, KOTTAYAM-1 6. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TELECOMMUNICATION SUB DISTRICT, ERATTUPETTA 7. LINEMAN, AMBARA AREA UNDER TELECOMMUNICATION SUB DIVISION, ERATTUPETTA. AS NO.279/2001 (*)ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 IMPLEADED) ADDL.R8 SHAJI V.K. S/O.KESAVAN @ MONEY, VALARIMAKKAL HOUSE, MELAMPARA KARA, THALAPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADDL.R9 JIJI V.M. S/O.KESAVAN @ MONEY, VALARIMAKKAL HOUSE, MELAMPARA KARA, THALAPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT [(*) IT IS RECORDED THAT THE 1ST RESPONDENT DIED AND THAT ONE OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT IS THE 2ND RESPONDENT, ALREADY IN PARTY ARRAY AND THE OTHER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R8 AND R9 AS PER ORDER DT.29/02/2012 IN I.A.NO.3219/2008.] BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL FOR R3 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR FOR R1 TO R2 AND ADDL.R8 AND ADDL.R9 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-08-2008, ALONG WITH RFA. 317/2003, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A.S.No.279 of 2001-B & R.F.A No.317/2003-B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T J U D G M E N T RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. Both the appeals arise from the decree and judgment in O.S.No.75/1996 of the Sub-ordinate Judges Court, Pala. The appellants in A.S. No.279/2001 are defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the appellants in R.F.A.No.317/2003 are defendant Nos.4 to 8 in the suit. Since the appeals arise from the same decree and judgment, both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The suit is one for compensation and as per the decree and judgment, the plaintiffs have been allowed to recover an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the defendants. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs being the parents of one Shibu, aged 18 years, who was electrocuted on 11/04/1994 at about 9.30 p.m while he was engaged in fishing. He received electric shock from a broken wire immersed in water. There was an abandoned telephone line of the defendants 4 to 8, the appellants in the R.F.A No.317/2003, which came into contact with the electric line and thus, the accident happened. The deceased was A.S.No.279 of 2001-B & R.F.A No.317/2003-B -:2:- only aged 18 years and was a headload worker as well as engaged in timber cutting and loading. The average income claimed is Rs.100/- per day. Accordingly, a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was claimed. 3. PWs.1 to 5 were examined on the side of the plaintiffs and and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. DWs.1 to 5 were examined and Ext.B1 was marked in the side of the defendants. Exts.X1 to X2(a) also have been marked on evidence. 4. The evidence adduced showed that negligence is on the part of the appellants in both the appeals. Even though the Electricity Board raised a contention that the officials of the P & T Department were negligent in retaining an abandoned telephone line and consequent upon which the telephone line came into contact with the electricity line causing the accident, it was found by the court below that defendants 1 to 3 who are in charge of the management and supply of the electricity also should have been vigilant in seeing that there was no occasion of the electric line touching the telephone line. The other plea raised by the defendant was that the accident was caused by natural calamities which was not proved in evidence. Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitor , the court below found that the appellants in A.S.No.279/2001 are responsible for the management and control of the power supply system at the place of A.S.No.279 of 2001-B & R.F.A No.317/2003-B -:3:- accident and they cannot escape from the liability. On the same principle, it was held that the appellants in R.F.A No.317/2003 are also liable. 5. Even though it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that negligence as such has not been proved, we find that, that argument cannot be accepted in the light of the clear evidence available on the part of the plaintiffs. The defendants were duty bound to see that the abandoned telephone line does not come into contact with the live electric wire. In that wiew of the matter, the appellants in both the appeals are clearly negligent and they cannot escape from the liability. The defendants/appellants could not, by any cogent evidence, establish that they had taken due care and caution, and that there was no negligence on the part of the appellants in causing any accident. In the absence of such cogent evidence also we find that the finding rendered by the court below that the appellants were negligent in causing the accident does not call for any interference. 6. The deceased was only 18 years at the time of the accident. He was an able bodied person and was working as a headload worker earning Rs.100/- per day. The plaintiffs limited their claim to Rs.2,00,000/- and damages have been claimed under various A.S.No.279 of 2001-B & R.F.A No.317/2003-B -:4:- heads of mental agony and pain, loss of consortium and loss of income etc.. The evidence regarding the income of the deceased has not been controverted and, therefore, the annual income would be Rs.36,000/-. One third of the amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and taking the multiplier as 16, the court below fixed the total compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. Even though it is argued that the compensation thus arrived is at a higher side, we are of the view that the same is quite just and reasonable in the facts and evidence available in this case. In the light of the above finding, the appeals do not resolve any merits and both the appeals are dismissed without any order as to cost. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms