The Assistant Engineer Vs S.Kalaiyarasi

[Minor Respondents 2 to 4 are represented by their Guardian and Next Friend Mother, the 1st https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent - S.Kalaiyarasi]

¶18

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶19

5.Bhavani

¶20

.....Respondents / Plaintiffs

¶21

Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XLI, Rule 41A of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the judgement and decree dated 16.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.217 of 2018 on the file of the principal District Judge at Cuddalore

¶22

For Appellants : Mrs.J.Hemalatha For Respondents : Ms.S.Nazira Banu for Mrs.Ramya V.Rao for RR1 to 5

¶23

JUDGEMENT

¶24

This appeal suit is preferred by the Tamil Nadu General and Distribution

¶25

Corporation Limited at Cuddalore challenging the judgement and decree dated

¶26

16.12.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Cuddalore in

¶27

O.S.No.217 of 2018 granting a compensation of Rs.8,80,000/- in a case of

¶28

electrocution of one Siva of Vandipalayam in Cuddalore District.

¶29

The respondents are the plaintiffs and the appellants are the defendants

¶30

in O.S.No.217 of 2018. The 1st respondent/1st plaintiff is the wife, respondents 2

¶31

to 4/plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the minor son and daughters of the deceased and the 5th

¶32

respondent/5th plaintiff is the mother of the deceased Siva.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶35

For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal suit will

¶36

hereinafter be referred to as per their array before the trial court.

¶37

The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows :

¶38

(i) On July 28, 2017, at approximately 06.00 p.m., the deceased

¶39

Siva was riding his motorcycle bearing Regn. No. TN-31-BE-2599 from East to

¶40

West along with a pillion rider named Dheivalakshmi at a moderate speed.

¶41

During that time, heavy wind and rain damaged an electric post, causing a live wire to snap off and fall onto the main road. The deceased Siva who was riding a motorcycle on M.Pudur Main Road, opposite Sri Vinayaga Tyre Works, when

¶42

came into contact with a live wire that was lying across the road, was electrocuted and fell unconscious on the spot. He was immediately rushed to Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital in Puducherry, where the doctor examined him and declared him “brought dead”. Thereafter, his body was shifted to the Government Head Quarters Hospital in Cuddalore for postmortem before being shifted back to his home for the funeral rites. The pillion

¶43

rider, Dheivalakshmi, and another person named Sridhar were also hurt as a

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶46

result of the electric shock. A complaint was filed with Thirupapuliyur Police

¶47

Station, and an FIR was recorded under Crime No. 457 of 2017.

¶48

(ii) The officials at TANGEDCO were completely negligent, leading to

¶49

the tragedy. Keeping public safety in mind, the officials in charge should have

¶50

inspected the areas where electrical posts and lines were built on a regular basis, repaired any problems that arose, and so properly maintained the posts and electric lines/wires. However, they miserably failed in carrying out their duties and responsibilities, resulting in the death of the deceased Siva. The snapping

¶51

off an electric wire is a clear evidence of faulty maintenance of electrical wire.

¶52

As a result of their negligence, the defendants must bear responsibility for Siva's death.

¶53

(iii) The deceased Siva was a Mason who earned Rs.750/- per day. He was approximately 36 years old at the time of electrocution. The plaintiffs are, wife, children and mother of the deceased Siva. They are the lawful heirs and

¶54

dependants of the deceased Siva, who passed away and the said Siva was the

¶55

family's sole breadwinner. The plaintiffs are deeply saddened by the irreversible

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶58

death of the deceased, Siva whose sudden demise left them in a permanent lurch and deprived them of all of his income. They have been struggling greatly, with the first plaintiff, who was the deceased's wife, suffering from a loss of consortium and the other plaintiffs from the loss of love and affection.

¶59

(iv) They have spent a huge amount on his death, ambulance charges

¶60

and funeral expenses. The plaintiffs have issued a legal notice dated 31.10.2018 to the defendants seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of Siva,

¶61

but they have not paid any compensation the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs estimated

¶62

the compensation payable at Rs.12,00,000/- for the loss of estate, loss of income

¶63

and future prospects, loss of love and affection to the plaintiffs, ambulance

¶64

expenses, transport charge, funeral expenses and shock and agony.

¶65

(v) The electrocution happened within the jurisdiction of the 1st

¶66

defendant and the 2nd defendant is the District Head of the TANGEDCO.

¶67

Hence, all the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as

¶68

estimated above to the plaintiffs.

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶71

5.1 The case of the defendants is that the suit is not maintainable in law

¶72

and on facts. It is denied that due to the failure to maintain the electrical wire in good condition caused the death of the deceased Siva. The defendants would submit that the defendants are discharging their duties and responsibilities with great care by inspecting the spot. There was no complaint received from the place of occurrence that the electrical wire was not properly maintained. Electrical cables have an automatic power cut-off system, ensuring that even if a

¶73

damaged wire falls down, the power supply will shut off immediately.

¶74

5.2 The plaint did not mention the negligence on the part of the

¶75

defendants as a cause of the accident. There is no connection between the

¶76

defendants and the death of the deceased Siva. According to the complaint, the accident was caused by the deceased Siva's negligence in not spotting an electrical wire in the middle of the road without electricity. In the postmortem

¶77

certificate, the doctor also said that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained on the neck, rather than electrocution. As a result, the defendants are

¶78

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶79

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶80

not liable for Siva's death, and the plaintiffs are therefore not entitled to

¶81

compensation, and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶82

Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for

¶83

trial by the trial court:

¶84

1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a sum of

¶85

Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Siva by

¶86

electrocution?

¶87

2.To what reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?

¶88

During the trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff examined

¶89

herself as P.W.1 and in support of her case, one Sridhar and Dr.Sudhakar were

¶90

examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 were marked. On the side of

¶91

the defendants, one Dharman, Junior Engineer, TNEB, Pathirikuppam,

¶92

Cuddalore was examined as D.W.1, however no document was marked on the

¶93

side of the defendants. The trial court, after analyzing all the evidence available

¶94

on record, found that the defendants were negligent in not maintaining the

¶95

electrical wire properly and therefore, applying the rule of strict liability,

¶96

directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 8,80,000/- as compensation to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶97

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶98

family of the deceased Siva with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of payment in full. Challenging the decree granting compensation with interest to the plaintiffs, the defendants are before this court with the present appeal suit.

¶99

Heard Mrs.J.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants

¶100

and Ms.S.Nazira Banu for Mrs.Ramya V.Rao, learned counsel on record for the respondents/plaintiffs.

¶101

9.1 The learned counsel for the defendants would submit that there was

¶102

no evidence to establish that the death was solely caused by electrocution. According to her, the oral testimony of the doctor who performed the post-

¶103

mortem and issued the post-mortem certificate did not establish that deceased died due to electrocution. According to P.W.3, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, the deceased did not have any other injuries except for an abrasion

¶104

on his neck. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the trial court erred in

¶105

coming to the conclusion that the deceased died as a result of electrocution due

¶106

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶107

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶108

to the defendants' negligence in failing to properly maintain the live electrical wire.

¶109

9.2 Without prejudice to her above submissions regarding negligence attributed on the part of the defendants, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that the trial court erred in adopting the multiplier method to determine a just compensation and went beyond its authority in awarding compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium, and

¶110

funeral costs, all of which cannot be ordered in a suit for damages.

¶111

Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that D.W.1, in his evidence, clearly admitted that on the date of the tragic incident,

¶112

an electrical post got damaged due to heavy wind and rain; as a result, the live wire got snapped off, and the same was lying on the road. This by itself is sufficient to conclude that there was negligence on the part of the TANGEDCO

¶113

in not maintaining the live electrical wire properly which resulted in the death of

¶114

the deceased Siva by electrocution.

¶115

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶116

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶117

Considering the rival submissions, now the points that arise for

¶118

consideration in this appeal suit are:

¶119

Whether appellants/defendants were negligent in not in maintaining the electrical wire properly?

¶120

Was the accident due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased Siva?

¶121

Whether the appellants/defendants are liable to compensate the family of the deceasedSiva under strict liability?

¶122

I have considered the rival submissions and the available records

¶123

carefully.

¶124

Point Nos.1 and 2 :

¶125

13.1 It is not in dispute that the accident was occurred on 28.07.2017 at

¶126

06.00 p.m. when the deceased was returning home after his mason work on his

¶127

motor cycle bearing Regn. TN 31-BE-2599 on M.Pudur Main Road from East

¶128

to West keeping Dheivalakshmi as pillion rider.

¶129

13.2 It is the case of the plaintiffs that during that time, heavy wind and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶130

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶131

rain damaged an electric post, causing a live wire to snap off and fall onto the main road and the deceased Siva, who was riding a motorcycle on M.Pudur Main Road, opposite Sri Vinayaga Tyre Works, when came into contact with a

¶132

live wire that was lying across the road, was electrocuted and fell unconscious on the spot.

¶133

On the other hand, the defendants denied the allegations that the

¶134

deceased Siva died due to electrocution and the defendants were negligent in

¶135

not maintaining the live electrical wire properly. According to them, there was

¶136

no complaint received regarding any electrical wire snapping. The stand of the defendants is that the electrical wires have automatic power cut off device and

¶137

as such, if the damaged electrical wire fell, the power supply would cut off automatically. The learned Principal District Judge upon considering the available records proceeded to award compensation applying the principle of

¶138

strict liability, which means that TANGEDCO is liable even if they were not negligent, as long as the injury or death occurred due to the electricity supply.

¶139

Here, the defendants’ case is that the medical evidence has not proved the fact https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶140

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶141

that the death was due to electrocution.

¶142

14.1 However, excepting an evasive denial by the defendants that they are

¶143

not responsible for the death of the deceased Siva stating that the electrical lines

¶144

have an automatic power cut-off device and if the damaged electrical wire fell,

¶145

the power supply would cut off automatically, nowhere in the written statement

¶146

did the defendants dispute the fact that the electrical post got damaged because

¶147

of heavy wind; due to that, the live electrical wire connected to the electrical

¶148

posts got snapped off, which resulted in the untoward occurrence causing the

¶149

death of the deceased Siva.

¶150

P.W.2, one of the eyewitnesses in his evidence, stated that the

¶151

deceased Siva came into contact with the snapped-off electrical wire and died

¶152

on the spot due to electrocution. P.W. 3, the doctor who conducted the autopsy,

¶153

has found an abrasion on the neck of the deceased. Though the doctor (P.W.3)

¶154

could not give his definite opinion as to the cause of death as electrocution for

¶155

want of a viscera report, the fact that the deceased was admitted to the hospital

¶156

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶157

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶158

immediately after he fell off from the bike due to snapping off the live electrical wire is spoken to by P.W.2.

¶159

A careful examination of the FIR (Ex.A.1) would further demonstrate that the electrical wire snapped off owing to a natural disaster but was left unattended and it was lying on the main road. The deceased while he was returning home after his daily work, came into contact with the snapped off electrical wire and succumbed to injuries. It is pertinent to note that, despite the defendants' denial of responsibility in their written statement, D.W.1 implicitly acknowledged in his evidence that on the day of the incident, strong winds and

¶160

rain caused damage to the electrical post, causing the wire attached to the posts to break and fall onto the road. According to him, as per the records, they received information about the death of a person (Siva) in electrocution. As per

¶161

their enquiry, they came to know that the deceased died only due to electrocution. However, no records has been produced. But the very admission of D.W.1 makes it clear that the death was due to electrocution and that the

¶162

defendants have not disproved the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Merely because https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶163

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶164

the doctor (P.W.3) who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased could not offer his opinion about the cause of the death of the deceased because of non receipt of viscera report, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased Siva was not due to electrocution. When the accident is not disputed and the snapping off the electrical wire because of the damage caused to an electrical post due to heavy wind and rain and the falling of electrical wire on the main road are not disputed by the defendants/TANGEDCO, it has to be necessarily held that the defendants are solely responsible for the untoward incident. The appellants/defendants cannot place the blame on the deceased who rode the motorcycle and escape liability for electrocution caused by a snapped off live wire or snapped off wire on the public road.

¶165

The law has been well settled in a catena of decisions by the Hon'ble

¶166

Supreme Court that compensation is based on the principle of strict liability which means that the electricity supplier is liable even if they were not negligent

¶167

as long as the injury or death occurred due to the electricity supply.

¶168

In the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶169

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶170

and Others, AIR 2002 SC 551 , the Supreme Court held that the electricity board cannot escape liability for electrocution caused by a snapped off live wire on a public road due. And even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure

¶171

to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury or loss suffered by any other person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on

¶172

the part of the managers of such undertakings. The relevant paragraph of the

¶173

abovesaid judgement read as follows:-

¶174

“ 8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the

¶175

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶176

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶177

concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.

¶178

14. The Privy Council has observed in Quebec Rly., Light, Heat and Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry [1920 AC 662 : 89 LJPC 99 : 123 LT 1] that the company supplying electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent. Even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account of a violent wind and high-tension current found its way through the low-tension cable into the premises of the respondents was held to be not a justifiable defence. Thus, merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road.”

¶179

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶180

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶181

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shail Kumari's case [(2002) 2 SCC 162], this court is of the view that the under the law of torts, the appellants/defendants are required to compensate for the injury or loss sufferred by any other person. The deceased cannot be blamed for the untoward incident that had happened due to the snapping off the live electrical wire. The point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly against the appellants/defendants and in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

¶182

Point No.3 :

¶183

Coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased was aged 36

¶184

years at the time of occurrence. He was working as a mason and looked after his entire family consisting of his wife, three children and mother, who were the respondents/plaintiffs. The trial court also took into consideration the fact that

¶185

the sole bread winner of the family has left behind three minor children and mother apart from his spouse. As per the plaintiffs, the deceased used to earn

¶186

Rs.750/- per day, which would have increased with the passage of time. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶187

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶188

learned Judge, after considering the age and nature of work that was being done by the deceased, determined the pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and after giving a deduction of 1/4th amount from the

¶189

monthly income towards the personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive, concluded that the deceased would have contributed a sum of Rs.54,000/per annum to his family had he been alive. Considering the age of the deceased, the learned Judge has applied a multiplier of 15 as per the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thus awarded a sum of Rs.8,10,000/(Rs.6,000 X 12 = 72,000 X 25 / 100 = 54,000/- X 15 = Rs,8,10,000/-) towards loss of dependency. In addition to the above, the learned Judge granted a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

¶190

The trial court has elaborately considered the relevant yardsticks and

¶191

after applying deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased and considering the dependants of the deceased, the trial court has granted a total sum of Rs.8,10,000/- towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs.70,000/-

¶192

towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses and in all a sum https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶193

A.S.No.68 of 2022

¶194

of Rs.8,80,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of plaint till the

¶195

date of payment in full and thereafter, compensation has been apportioned to

¶196

take care of the interest of all the dependants entitled to compensation. This

¶197

court does not find any ground to interfere with the quantum of compensation determined by the trial court. This point is also answered accordingly against

¶198

the appellants/defendants and in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

¶199

In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal must fail.

¶200

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgement and decree dated 16.12.2019 made by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, in O.S.No.217 of 2018 are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is

¶201

closed.

¶202

Index : yes / no 26..02..2025 Neutral Citation : yes / no

¶203

kmk

¶204

To

¶205

1.The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶206

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis