High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23 .11.2007CORAM :THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANA.S.No.20 of 1996 1. Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Madras – 2.2. Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thiruvannamalai T.S. District. .... AppellantsVs.1. Mrs. Lalitha2. Minor Manikandan3. Minor Lakshmi ..... Respondents(Minors represented by guardian and mother, the first respondent herein) Appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated29.07.1994 made in O.S.No.81 of 1992 on the file of the SubCourt, Arni. For Appellants : Mr.N.Muthuswami for TNEBFor Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayakumar for M/s. T.R.RajaramanJ U D G M E N T This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment andDecree, dated 29.07.1994 made in O.S.No.81 of 1992 on the file ofthe Subordinate Court, Arni. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The respondents / defendants are the LegalRepresentatives of one V.Shanmugam, who died on 27.09.1989 atabout 10 a.m, while he set his feet on a severed live electricwire that had fallen on the ground in an agricultural field,belonging to one Munuswamy Naidu in S.U.Vanam, Arni Taluk anddied of electrocution instantaneously. After the death ofShanmugam, it was reported to the police, FIR was registered andpostmortem was also conducted. The Tahsildar, Arni issued DeathCertificate, Ex.A.2 and also Legal Heirship Certificate, Ex.A.3.It is not in dispute that the first respondent is the wife andthe respondents 2 and 3 are the minor children and as such theyare the Legal Heirs of the deceased. 3. Before the trial court, on the side of the respondents,the first respondent was examined as P.W.1, apart from anotherwitness, P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A29 were also marked. On the side ofthe appellants / defendants, D.W.1 was examined and no documentwas marked on the side of the appellant herein. Considering theoral and documentary evidence, the trial court has held that theclaims of the respondents / plaintiffs have been proved andaccordingly decreed the suit and directed the appellants to pay asum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the respondents herein.Aggrieved by which, this appeal has been preferred by theappellants / defendants.4. According to P.W.1, the deceased Shanmugam was the breadwinner of his family and he was earning an average of Rs.50/- perday as an agricultural coolie and also by milk vending business.According to her, she had sent a written representation to theTahsildar, the original of Ex.A.5, the postal acknowledgment hasbeen marked as Ex.A.6 and also a representation to the DistrictCollector, the copy of same has been marked as Ex.A.7. 5. She has further stated that she had received Ex.A.8,reply from the Office of the Superintending Engineer, TNEB,Thiruvannamalai Division and under Ex.A.9, required particularswere also furnished by the respondents. Subsequently, it wasinformed that the appellants would pay only Rs.10,000/- ascompensation under Ex.A.19. After receiving the aforesaid amount,she wrote another letter to the appellants office, seekingadequate compensation, but the request was not complied with,hence, she filed the suit, seeking compensation of Rs.90,000/-from the appellants. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The points for consideration arose in this appeal are asfollows :1) Whether V.Shanmugam, husband of the first respondentand father of the respondents 2 and 3 died due to the negligenceof the appellants ?2) Whether the compensation awarded by the trial courtfor the death of the said Shanmugam is exorbitant ?7. Mr.N.Muthuswami, learned counsel appearing for theappellants contended that the electrocution and the death of thehusband of the first respondent was not occurred due to thenegligence on the part of the appellants herein. According tohim, as there was heavy rain and wind, the overhead electric livewires were severed and hanging, but the same was not due to thenegligence of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and as such theappellants are not liable to pay any compensation to therespondents. 8. In the written statement, the appellants herein haveadmitted that there was a heavy rain and wind, which started inmid night on 26.09.1989 and continued till the next day morning.As there was sudden rain and speedy wind, without any priorsymptom, the department could not take steps to switch off thecurrent. The appellants further stated in the written statementthat the service connection in S.C.No.33 was not under use andthe concerned consumer had not intimated to disconnect theelectric line, otherwise, the appellants could have takenimmediate steps to disconnect the line and restore its originalposition.9. Per contra, Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearingfor the respondents would contend that as per Rule 91 of theIndian Electricity Rules, 1956, it is a mandatory duty on thepart of the Electricity Board to adopt safety measures in orderto prevent unexpected electrocution on account of sever in livewire, due to storm or speedy wind. 10. Rule 91 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 reads asfollows :" 91. Safety and protective devices : - (1)Every overhead line, (not being suspendedfrom a dead bearer wire and not being coveredwith insulating material and not being atrolley-wire) erected over any part of streetor other public place or in any factory ormine or on any consumer's premises shall beprotected with a device approved by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Inspector for rendering the line electricallyharmless in case it breaks.(2) An Inspector may by notice in writingrequire the owner of any such overhead linewherever it may be erected to protect it inthe manner specified in sub-rule (1).(3) The owner of every high and extra-highvoltage overhead line shall make adequatearrangements to the satisfaction of theInspector to prevent unauthorised personsfrom ascending any of the support of suchoverhead lines which can be easily climbedupon without the help of a ladder or specialappliances. Rails, reinforced cement concretepoles and pre-stressed cement concrete poleswithout steps, tubular poles, wooden supportswithout steps, I sections and channels shallbe deemed as supports which cannot be easilyclimbed upon for the purpose of this rule."11. In the decision, Nirmala vs. T.N.Electricity Board,reported in AIR 1984 MADRAS 201, this Court has held as follows :" 7. Overhead electric wires carrying heavyload of electric energy are highly dangerousand if any human being or animal comes intocontact with the same, the consequences arefatal. Hence, great care and caution areexpected of the Electricity Board in laying,installing and maintaining overhead wires andgenerally these wires do not snap and falldown. If therefore, such a thing happens, aprima facie inference can be drawn that therehas been carelessness or negligence on thepart of the Electricity Board in transmittingelectric energy or in maintaining thetransmission lines. "12. As per Rule 91 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, everyoverhead electric line, which is not covered with insulatingmaterial, but erected over any part of a street or other publicplace or any factory or mine or any consumer's premises shall beprotected with a device approved by the Inspector for renderingthe live electrical line harmless in case, it breaks. If properprecaution under this rule is taken, the line in case breakswould become dead and harmless. The fact is that the overheadelectric line, after having snapped and fallen down, if continuedto be a live wire and would be harmful and also endanger the lifeof human beings as well as animals and therefore, proper measurescould have been taken by the official of the Electricity Board. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for therespondents, the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' is applicablefor the facts and circumstances of this case, in order to provethe negligence and also the non-compliance of Rule 91 of IndianElectricity Rules, 1956. It is not in dispute that on 27.09.1989at about 10 a.m, the husband of the first respondent, whilesetting his foot at the agricultural field got electrocuted anddied, due to the snapping of the over head live electric wire onaccount of the heavy rain and storm, that had occurred in theprevious night. 14. It is clear that Rule 91 of the Indian ElectricityRules, 1956 stipulates that every overhead electric line erectedover any part of a street or other public place or any factory ormine or any consumer's premises shall be protected with a deviceapproved by the Inspector for rendering the line electricallyharmless in case it breaks. It is seen that the electrocution hadoccurred only in the open place of the village and a poor man andhis dependents were made victims.15. Considering the heavy rain and storm and also the nonusage of the electric service for a long time by the consumer, asadmitted by the appellants in the written statement the sameshould have been disconnected or at least the particular serviceconnection could have been switched off, on account of the heavyrain and storm. On the facts and circumstances of the case andalso the evidence available on record, I am of the view that theprinciple of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ is applicable to infer that theelectrocution and the instantaneous death of V.Shanmugam, husbandof the first respondent and the father of the minor respondents 2and 3 had occurred only due to the negligence of the ElectricityBoard.16. It is seen that the mandatory safety measures stipulatedunder Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 were notcomplied with by the concerned officials of the appellants, whichhad caused the death of the husband of the first respondent. Theplea of the appellants that it was an act of God or nature cannotbe taken as a legal defence.17. The next question for consideration is regarding thequantum of compensation awarded by the court below. It is not indispute that the deceased Shanmugam had been the bread winner ofthe family and the first respondent, wife, aged about 28 years onthe date of the occurrence and the minor respondents 2 and 3 werealso his dependents. According to the first respondent, who wasexamined as P.W.1, the deceased was earning an average amount ofRs.50/- per day. Being an agricultural coolie worker, having milk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vending business, he could have earned normally Rs.50/- per dayand accordingly, he could have earned Rs.1,500/- per month. If1/3rd income is deducted for his personal expenses, at least hecould have contributed Rs.1,000/- for the respondents, being hisdependents and accordingly, per year, he could have spendRs.12,000/- for the respondents. Considering the young age of thedeceased, multiplier 15 available in the Motor Vehicles Act wouldbe applicable for computing the financial loss sustained by thedependents. Accordingly, the financial loss would have beencomputed at Rs.1,80,000/- and being an young widow, the firstrespondent was entitled to a reasonable amount of compensationtowards consortium. The trial court, after discussing all thisfactors has awarded only Rs.90,000/- as compensation withapportionment, since the respondents herein had claimed onlyRs.90,000/- as compensation in the plaint. The suit was filedonly In Forma Pauperis and subsequently numbered as suit. 18. It has been clearly established in the case by oral anddocumentary evidence that V.Shanmugam, husband of the firstrespondent and the father of the respondents 2 and 3 had died,due to the negligence of the officials of the Tamil NaduElectricity Board and that the compensation awarded by the courtbelow is only a minimum amount, which is no way exorbitant. Itis unfortunate that the appellants have preferred the appealagainst the judgment, without considering the facts andcircumstances of the case.19. I, therefore find it reasonable to confirm the Judgmentand Decree passed by the court below and dismiss the appeal.20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. It isordered that the appellants herein have to pay the court feepayable to the Government.TsvnSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Subordinate Judge, Arni.2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr. N. Muthuswami, Advocate SR No. 69597+ 1 cc to Mr. T. R. Rajaraman, Advocate SR No. 68967 Judgment in A.S.No.20 of 1996AKR(CO)SR/10.1.2008