Allowed

Kseb v. Anil Kumar

Kerala HC6 Apr 2022AS/104/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerns appeals regarding liability for electric shock injuries sustained by a workman during KSEB-directed works performed by a contractor. The court held that KSEB bears liability for safeguarding measures and disallowed personal liability against the officials.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against officials dismissed; decree exonerating them from personal liability confirmed; liability confirmed against KSEB.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

AS NO. 258 OF 2002

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 30/1997 OF SUB COURT,ATTINGAL

¶7

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 2 & 3:

¶8

1 RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI(DIED) LINE MAN, OVERSEARS OFFICE, NAGRUR, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 SUBHASH CHANDRAN BOSE OVERSEAR, OVERSEARS OFFICE,, NAGRUR, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

*3 SARADAMMA (WIFE) RESIDING AT ANU BHAVAN, KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695608

¶11

*4 ANU CHANDRAN (SON) RESIDING AT ANU BHAVAN, KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695608

Kseb Vs Anil Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶59

and 3 who are the officials under the Kerala
State Electricity Board (for short KSEB). It
is pertaining to the grant of compensation on
account of the electric shock and injuries
sustained by the plaintiff during the course
of work conducted under the 5th defendant,
contractor, based on an Order issued by the
KSEB Ext.A13. The work which were granted to
the 5thdefendant made mentioned in the
schedule as item 1 to 15, which are extracted
below for reference:-

¶66

5.	`Digging pole/stay pits of`
	`standard size in all classes` `of soil`
6.	`Fitting and erecting Psc pole` `in position including back` `filling of pits`
7.	`Do- Tw pole – do-`
8.	`Dismantling and reproviding` `LT stays`
9.	`Dismantling` `and` `damaged` `Rcc/Psc poles`
10.	`Dismantling the damaged LT TW` `pole`
11.	`Dismantling and redoing OH` `service line`
12.	`Dismantling and redoing W/p` `service line`
13.	`Steadying` `Rcc/Psc pole in` `position after digging pits` `and backfilling of pits`
14.	`Reshackling of LT 3 phase` `line`
15.	`Reshackling of LT SP line” [SIC]`

¶67

2. Going by thecontract granted under the
local order to the 5th defendant, it is clear
that no right of handling with supply of
electric energy or its stoppage, continuance,
maintenance, and control were given to 5th
defendant.Necessarily,itshouldbe

¶70

understoodthatthecontrol,supply,
maintenance and stoppage of the electrical
energy is vested with the KSEB, the 1st
defendant, who is responsible to take up all
safeguarding measures while permitting the 5th
defendant, the contractor, to do the work made
mentioned in the local order Ext.A13.

¶71

3. It is an admitted case that such an
incident was happened due to the electric
shock and the plaintiff fell down and
sustained injuries and ultimately one of his
legs was amputated till the knee. The
defendant Nos. 2 and 3 came up in As.258/2002
challenging the liability extended by the
trial court against them, though the 1st
defendant, KSEB, is principally responsible
for the wrong done, who is bound to take all
the safeguarding measures while granting a
work to the third person, the 5th defendant.

¶74

The defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are officials
under the 1st defendant and if there is any
negligence on their part or deficiency in
service, it shall be dealt with in accordance
with the departmental procedure by taking
departmental action against the erring
officers. Hence, the extension of liability
against the defendant Nos. 2 to 4, who are the
officials working under the 1st defendant, the
KSEB, cannot be sustained. I am at a loss to
understand what is actually granted by the
trial court, whether it is a personal decree
against the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 or
liability was extended to their respective
officer. There may not be any doubt with
respect to the liability vested with the KSEB,
the 1st defendant and as such the decree
granted imposing joint and several liability
as against the defendant Nos. 2, 3, and 4

¶79

4. The other appeal-As.No.104 of 2003 is
preferred by the 1st defendant on the ground
that the 5th defendant was exonerated from the
liability though the initial wrong came from
the work done by the 5th defendant. It is too
difficult to accept the said contention simply
because of the reason that as discussed
earlier the control, maintenance, continuance
and stoppage of the electric energy or any
part thereof, were not given under any
contract and they were directed to do some
work of transportation of posts, digging
channels etc., and in that event it is upon
the KSEB, the 1st defendant, to take all
precautionary measures and if there is any

¶82

laches, default or negligence, they are liable
to answer to all consequences flowing out of
that negligence, default or deficiency,
especially when it has resulted in the alleged
incident causing injuries to the plaintiffs.

¶83

5. The learned counsel for the appellants
in AS.No.258/2002 brought to the notice of
this Court the judgment rendered in a sessions
appeal. It has no much relevance in the civil
dispute because of the reason that what is
dealt under the judgment is with respect to
the negligence, if any, which would constitute
a criminal a liability and not pertaining to
the vicarious liability.

¶84

In the result, AS.No.258/2002 is allowed
and the AS.No.104/2003 will stand dismissed.
The decree and judgment of the lower court
will stand modified as exonerating defendant
Nos. 2 to 4 from any personal liability and

Kseb v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyani Vs Radha K.K.

Thressiamma Vs Kunjuramma

Satyam Audios, Vs Jimmy Alias

Johny Vs Chakkappan

Ramachandran Pillai Vs Anil Kumar

Kseb v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyani Vs Radha K.K.

Thressiamma Vs Kunjuramma

Satyam Audios, Vs Jimmy Alias

Johny Vs Chakkappan

Ramachandran Pillai Vs Anil Kumar

A compact analysis

Dakshayani Amma Vs Radha Amma