MOIDU HAJI Vs. KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third defendant and the plaintiffs have filed these appeals. The Kerala State Electricity Board, its Chairman and the third defendant were sued for damages on account of the electrocution of Raveendran Nair, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant. The court below granted a decree as against the third defendant. He is, therefore, in appeal. The plaintiffs are in appeal against the refusal of decree as against the KSE Board.

(2.) The learned counsel for the third defendant argued that applying the doctrine of strict liability as enunciated in the precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, 2002 2 SCC 162 and H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath, 2004 5 SCC 793 , the liability was entirely on the KSE Board to ensure that the lines are maintained with due vertical clearances and horizontal clearances as provided by the prescriptions contained in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for short, the "Act" and the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, for short, the "Rules". It was accordingly argued that the material evidence on record, including Ext. Xl report by the Electrical Inspector, pointedly show that the KSE Board and the officers under it had failed to discharge their statutory obligations and hence, they are liable to satisfy the decree. The learned counsel also argued that the quantum of damages fixed is excessive.

(3.) On behalf of the plaintiffs, apart from supporting the decree as it stands, including as regards the quantum of damages, their learned counsel argued that notwithstanding the liability of the third defendant, the court below ought to have passed a joint and several decree as against the KSE Board as well. It was argued that the liability based on the doctrine of strict liability, as noted above, does not get wiped out and there was no ground to exonerate the KSE Board and its officials from liability.