K S E BOARD TRIVANDRUM Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kerala State Electricity Board, the defendant in O. S.34 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara is the appellant in this appeal .The suit was one for realisation of a sum Rs. 1,02,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit-by way of compensation on account of injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

(2.) The material averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint are the following:-Minor plaintiff's father Gopinathan Pillai owns a small plot of land near Neervilakam Lower Primary School. He was doing some agricultural operations in that plot on 8-5-1978 The minor plaintiff with his twin sister brought coffee to their father. While returning from the said plot through the paddy field known as Karackaveli vayal at about 5 p.m. the minor plaintiff happened to come into contact with a 11 K. V. line electric wire and sustained serious injuries. The stay wire which supported the electric post holding the 11 K.V. line at that place had been cut on or about 6th May, 1978 by some of the workers of the defendant Board. As a result of that the post gradually leaned and the wire came down sagging to a height of about 1 metre from the ground. Even though the mischief had been done 2 days prior to the incident, neither the defendant nor its officials cared to take any step to set right the line. As a result of the accident the minor plaintiff suffered severe shock and burns. He was taken to St. Thomas Hospital, Mavelikara. From there on 10th May he was admitted in the Medical Collage Hospital, Kottayam for further treatment. His right arm below the elbow had to be amputated. He was treated as an in-patient in the Medical College Hospital till 4-7-1978. Even thereafter he had to continue treatments. The minor was an intelligent and active boy about whom his parents and teachers had high hopes. As a result of this accident he lost one arm and ugly scars are left on his body. He has been deprived of the chances of living an active, useful and happy life. It affected his physical and mental capacities. His capacity to work as a normal person has been permanently impaired and his chances of getting a suitable bride

(3.) The defendants in their written statement raised the following contentions:- It is true that the plaintiff came into contact with live electric wire and sustained some burns. The incident took place at a time when a section of the employees of the Board were on indefinite strike. Throughout the State sabotages and putting down of electric lines were frequent at that time inspite of earnest attempts made by the State and the Board to prevent and detect the same. The defendant Board was always alert in maintaining the generation, transmission and distribution lines properly. The allegation that the stay wire was cut 2 days before 8-5-1978 is not correct. The mischief might have been done only shortly before the incident. Some unknown miscreants cut the staywire resulting in the line coming very low. The local officers of the Board acting with due diligence came to know of the sabotage only on the morning of 9-5-1978. Immediately information was given to the police and rectification steps were taken. The indefinite strike was launched by the employees from 4-5-1978 and sabotages were on the increase as a part of the strike. The public were aware of this fact through newspapers and otherwise. They also knew fully well that miscreants were persistently attempting sabotages over electric lines and installations throughout the State. All should have been careful in approaching electric installations in view of the possible danger due to sabotages. No member of the public is allowed to touch Board's electrical system especially when the electric wire found at a very low height. The plaintiff ought to have taken care not to come into contact with it. Inspite of more than ordinary diligence on the part of the officials of the Board the mischief could not be detected because there was nothing wrong in the circuit of current on account of the sabotage. There was absolutely no negligence on the part of the defendant or its officials to fix them with liability for damages. The accident in the case was the result of the minor plaintiff's own negligence for which the defendant cannot be held liable. It is not correct to say that the plaintiff became an invalid. It is true that one of his arms happened to be amputated and he is having incapacity to that extent. The lowering of the wire which resulted in the accident was not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant or its officials, but due to sabotage which was beyond the control or knowledge of the defendant. Even though the defendant was not bound to pay compensation legally, action was taken to pay exgratia compensation admissible under rules on compassionate grounds. The compensation claimed is very high and exaggerated. Defendant is not liable for any damages caused to the plaintiff and no compensation is payable.