IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 AS.No. 80 of 1996(A) ---------------------------- OS.548/1992 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, LAYAM ROAD, GIRI NAGAR, COCHIN-11. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN S.C K.S.E.B RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFFS: -------------------------------------------- 1. AYYAPPAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. VALAVAN, MATTAKKATHARA, RESIDING AT VENNAPPADAVU, H.NO.28/2146, CHILAVANNUR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (DELETED) (The name of Ist respondent is deleted from the party array as per order dated 26.3.98 on CMP 1582/98 and respondents 2 to 4 are recorded as the legal heirs of the Ist respondent as per order dated 26.3.98 on CMP No.1789/98) 2. SIVAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. AYYAPPAN, MATTAKKETHARA, RESIDING AT VENNAPPADAVU, H.NO.28/2146, CHILAVANNUR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. USHAKUMARI, D/O. AYYAPPAN, MATTAKKETHARA, RESIDING AT VENNAPPADAVU, H.NO.28/2146, CHILAVANNUR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. HEMA KUMARI, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.AYYAPPAN, -DO- -DO- AS.No. 80 of 1996 -2- 5. ANASOOYA, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O. AYYAPPAN, -DO- -DO- R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.BALAKRISHNAN. THIS APPEAL SUIT HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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