The Superintending Engineer,Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Cuddalore v. Sundari & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 22..04..2009Coram:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIAS.A.No.327 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009The Superintending Engineer,Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Cuddalore.... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs.1.Sundari2.Minor Amudha3.Minor Kavitha4.Minor Manikandanminors represented by nextfriend grandfather Ramachandran5.Govindasamy... Respondents/Plaintiffs/1st DefendantThis second appeal is filed against the judgement and decreedated 13.4.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge,Cuddalore, in A.S.No.67 of 2006, reversing the judgement and decreedated 26.10.2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti,in O.S.No.138 of 2002.For Appellant : Mr.N.MuthuswamiFor Respondents : No appearance JUDGMENTThis second appeal has been filed by the seconddefendant/Electricity Board, animadverting upon the judgement anddecree dated 13.4.2007 passed by the learned Principal DistrictJudge, Cuddalore, in A.S.No.67 of 2006, reversing the judgement anddecree dated 16.10.2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,Cuddalore, in O.S.No.138 of 2004. For convenience sake, the partiesare referred to here under according to their litigative statusbefore the trial Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, whichare absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this secondappeal, would run thus:(a) The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.67 of 2006claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- concerning the death of thehusband of the first plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4,one Somasundaram, due to electrocution, which took place on23.10.1994, as against which, the second defendant filed the writtenstatement and resisted the suit.(b) During enquiry, the trial Court framed the relevant issues.The first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with two othersand Exs.A1 to A.3 were marked. The first defendant examined himselfas D.W.1 along with one Arumugam-the Junior Engineer as D.W.2 andEx.B1 was marked.(c) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit, as againstwhich, the plaintiffs filed the A.S.No.67 of 2006. The firstappellate Court reversed the trial Court's judgement and awarded asum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum.(d) Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgement and decreepassed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.67 of 2006, this secondappeal has been focussed by the second defendant on various groundsand also suggesting the following substantial questions of law."(a) Whether the lower appellate Court is right inapplying the doctrine of strict liability and holding theappellant?board also is liable to pay compensation?(b) Whether the suit is not barred by limitation as perArticle 82 of the Limitation Act?(c) Whether Sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act isapplicable to the facts of the case?(d) Whether the appellant/Board is liable to paycompensation for the misuse of the electricity committed bythe 5th respondent illegal and without the knowledge of theTamil Nadu Electricity Board in violation of the terms andconditions of supply of electricity?(e) Whether the lower appellate Court is right infixing the monthly income of the deceased of Rs.3,000/-without any documentary evidence?(f) Whether the fixing of the lower appellate Courtthat the appellant-Board is negligent in not preventing themisuse of electricity by the 5th respondent is sustainable inlaw and facts of this case?."(extracted as such)3. A bare poring over and perusal of the typed set of papers,including the judgements of both the Courts below, would reveal that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the dependants/legal heirs of the deceased Somasundaram, aged about35 years, who died due to electrocution, filed the suit claimingRs.4,00,000/- from D1-the owner of the land, who erected a live wirefencing, so as to protect his land, and also from the the ElectricityBoard/D2.4. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Whereas, on appeal bythe plaintiffs, the first appellate Court, considered the case andawarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- holding that both D1 and D2are jointly and severally liable, as against which, the presentsecond appeal has been filed by D2/Electricity Board, setting out theaforesaid substantial questions of law.5. The learned counsel for the appellant/D2 would put forth hisargument to the effect that the fault was on Govindasamy/D1, whoillegally erected a live wire fencing, which he was not expected todo so and for that the Electricity Board cannot be mulcted withliability. 6. The first appellate Court, considering the case laws on thisaspect arrived at the conclusion that the Electricity Board was dutybound to see that D1 should not have maintained such live wire asfence, hence, the Electricity Board also was liable in this case.In paragraph 8 of the first appellate Court's judgement, as many as 5decisions, including the decision in Rylands v. Fletcher(1968 LR(3)HL 330) is found exemplified correctly. The learned District Judgealso discussed at length that the Electricity Board cannot wash itshands simply by pointing out that the fault was on D1. 7. It is axiomatic that D1 was not expected to erect fence withlive wires. The core question arises as to how the Electricity Boardcan be made liable for such violation of D1. The appellate Courtapplied the strict liability theory to the effect that live wire, iffound strewn in a place, then naturally the Electricity Board couldbe mulcted with liability, as the innocent by-passer should not bemade to suffer because of the negligent conduct of the ElectricityBoard officials in allowing such fence made of live wires inexistence endangering the innocent passers-by.8. It is a common or garden principle that the Electricity Boardofficials are expected to go on rounds and to see as to whether thereis any misusing of electricity supply. Here, it is crystal clearthat D1 went to the extent of erecting a live wire fencing, ofcourseto protect his field, and if the officials of the Electricity Boardhad been vigilant enough, certainly they could have found out thesame. As such, considering all these facts, the first appellateCourt correctly and appropriately decided the issue relating toliability and ultimately held that both D1 and D2 are jointly andseverally liable to pay compensation, warranting no interference by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Court. I could see no question of law much less substantialquestion of law involved in this case.9. As far as the period of limitation is concerned, the firstappellate Court correctly held that even though as per Article 82 ofthe Limitation Act, within two years from the date of death, thesuit should have been filed for compensation, as per Sections 6 and 7of the Limitation Act, minors can file suit after attainingmajority. 10. Here the widow and three minors are the plaintiffs and thattoo in a compensation case, the Electricity Board is not expected tohave a draconian view of the matter. As such, the view taken by thefirst appellate Court warrants no interference. 11. The institutions like Electricity Board should not pleadlimitation, so as to deprive the hapless and helpless victims of theaccident. In that view of the matter also I could find no faultwith the first appellate Court in deciding the limitation point asagainst the defendants.12. Regarding awarding of compensation is concerned, the firstappellate Court clearly held that the deceased, at the relevant pointof time, was aged about 35 years and accordingly, applied themultiplier 16. The monthly income of the deceased was taken asRs.3000/-, as he happened to be a coolie and the same warrants nointerference. 13. The awarding of compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of love and affection in favour of each of theplaintiffs might seems to be on the higher side. But, nocompensation towards loss of consortium to the first plaintiff wasawarded. Furthermore, after assessing the compensation in a sum ofRs.4,24,000/- it was slashed down to Rs.4,00,000/- as prayed in theplaint. As such, ultimately parity achieved in awarding thecompensation. In such a case, no interference with the awarding ofcompensation by the first appellate Court is required. 14. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mskTo1.The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.2.The Subordinate Judge, Panruti. Copy toThe Section Officer,V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.104.1 cc To Mr.N.Muthuswami, Advocate, SR.16561.S.A.No.327 of 2009 RJ(CO)RVL 16.06.2009