KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. BHASKARAM NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S. No. 639 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam are the appellants. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the court below awarding an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation on account of the death of Suresh Kumar, son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the brother of other respondents.

(2.) Deceased Suresh Kumar was working as a cleaner-cum-checker in a stage carriage bus bearing the registration No. KL 7-8937 plying between Kakkanad and Perumbadappu. At or about 4.30 a.m. on 29.6.1990, the deceased was walking along the pathway at Vazhakkala to fetch water from a public tap situated on the side of the road for cleaning the bus. An electric wire drawn over the pathway broke down and was lying on the pathway. Suresh Kumar accidentally touched the live wire. He sustained electric shock and died. The respondents who are the legal heirs of deceased Suresh Kumar filed the suit claiming compensation alleging that the power line drawn over the pathway was under the control and management of appellant No. 1 and the officers and employees working under it. It was alleged that the incident took place on account of the negligence of the appellant and its employees. It was also averred that the overhead electric line was not properly maintained by the appellants so as to prevent danger or accident. It was also alleged that there was persistent friction of overhanging branches of the trees with the electric wire. Though several people of the locality had alerted the officers of the appellants regarding the state of affairs, they were keeping quiet and hence the appellants are liable to pay compensation. It was further averred that Suresh Kumar was aged 24 years at the time of death and was healthy. He was working as a cleaner-cum-checker in a stage carriage and was earning not less than Rs. 100 per day as wages. It is also averred that the appellant paid Rs. 15,000 as ex gratia amount but failed to pay reasonable and adequate compensation. Hence the suit claiming an amount of Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation.

(3.) The appellants filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. It is contended that the incident occurred on 29.6.1990 and the suit was filed only on 28.6.1993. It is contended that in view of the provisions contained in Article 82 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of two years from the date of accident, the suit is barred. The averments that the deceased was working as a cleaner-cum-checker and was earning Rs. 100 per day was denied. It is contended that had the deceased been more careful, the accident could have been avoided. It is averred that due to heavy rain and wind, a cadjan leaf from a coconut palm which was standing outside the clearance area fell on the line causing breakage of the live conductor. The averment that the incident occurred due to negligence of the appellants was denied. It is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the appellants and the Board never received any complaint from the persons living in the locality. The accident was quite unforeseen and due to reasons beyond the control of the officers of the appellants. The averment that there were overhanging branches which posed threat to the live line was denied. It was also contended that the Board has taken all necessary safety measures. The quantum of compensation claimed under various heads is denied. The averment that respondents were depending on the deceased was also denied. It was contended that even though there was no negligence on the part of the officers of the Board, an amount of Rs. 15,000 was paid as ex gratia payment. Hence the appellants prayed for dismissal of the suit.