KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. CHANDRAMATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. 206/1994 on the file of the Sub Judge, Pala are the appellants. Cross objectors are plaintiffs in the above suit. Plaintiffs filed the suit in the court below under S.1A of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of one Sasidharan who died on 29.9.1980 due to electrocution under the following circumstances. Sasidharan was employed as driver in the lorry No. KRF 2104 of PW 2 and on the above day he was driving the vehicle in the Chittoor-Pala road and when they reached Mutholykadavu he found a big uprooted coconut tree lying across the road. PW 3 was accompanying him in the lorry. When deceased Sasidharan tried to remove the obstruction unware about the broken electric wire lying underneath the trunk of the tree, he sustained electric shock from the live wire and met with his end on the spot. Sasidharan had a heavy vehicle licence and was earning about Rs. 75/- a day as wages and was aged only 29 years at the time of the accident. He has left behind his widow (first plaintiff) and two children (plaintiffs 2 and 3) who were minors at that time. Sasidharan used to Work at least 23 days in a month and he used to give Rs. 1,000/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and children. Second plaintiff was studying for Pre degree at St. Joseph's College, Cheruthony and third plaintiff was studying in the Government L.P. School, Vazhathoppu. Sasidharans parents ie, defendants 3 and 4 and the plaintiffs were depending on his income for their livelihood. Sasidharan died due to the negligence and carelessness of defendants 1 and 2 who had not taken any steps to remove the live broken supply wire which was lying on the road for hours together. They did not take any steps to switch off the fuse. The place of incident was being frequently used by pedestrians and vehicles. Defendants 1 and 2 were aware that instantaneous death would follow if any living being comes across the broken wire. Plaintiffs sustained a pecuniary loss of Rs. 3,00,000/- as Sasidharan would have lived upto 65 years and would have continued with his work for another 25 years. They sustained a loss of Rs. 50,000/- towards non pecuniary damages. But the plaintiffs limited their claim to Rs. 1,50,000/-. A crime was registered by Gandhi Nagar Police as crime No. 688/1986 which was transferred to Pala Police Station. Even though a lawyer notice was issued to defendants 1 and 2 they did not send any reply. Hence the suit.

(2.) First defendant admitted in his written statement that Sasidharan died due to electrocution. But incident did not take place as alleged in the plaint. On 29.9.1980 in the evening a short time prior to the accident a coconut tree standing near the low tension live line happened to be uprooted and fell across the road resulting in the supply wire being cut. On getting information about the incident one Sreedharan (DW2) residing nearby the scene of accident rushed to the spot and made arrangement to warn the passengers not to cross or touch the broken wire until fuse is taken out. He went to remove the fuse of the line from the transformer. By the time deceased Sasidharan came across that way and unmindful of the warning given by the persons, got down from the lorry and tried to remove the live wire to one side. He was in a drunken state unable to realise the consequences of his reckless act. First defendant was not aware about the age, income or financial capacity of the deceased. It is incorrect to state that he died due to the negligence on the part of defendants 1 and 2. They have taken all necessary precautions to avoid an accident. Second defendant in the written statement adopted the contentions raised by the first defendant.

(3.) Plaintiffs produced the Driving Licence of Sasidharan (Ext. A1), report of the S.I. of Police, Pala (Ext. A2) and post mortem certificate (Ext A3). They examined first plaintiff as PW 1, the owner of the lorry as PW. 2 and the man who accompanied deceased in the lorry and who witnessed the incident as PW. 3. The defendants did not produce any document. They examined Assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity Board, Kothamangalam who was at the relevant time working at Pala as DW1 and one Sreedharan who was living nearby the scene of incident as DW2. The Trial Court found that defendants 1 and 2 were negligent in that they did not take sufficient precaution to switch off the supply and remove the fuse when the electric line was broken. The versions of DWs. 1 and 2 were disbelieved. It found that Sasidharan met with his end due to the negligence of defendants 1 and 2. While fixing the quantum the lower court found that Sasidharan was earning Rs. 50/- a day, that he used to get work for 20 days a month and calculating the longevity as 55 years inferred that he would have worked for 25 years as a driver. It fixed the annual income at Rs. 9,600/- and adopting a multiplier of 12 1/2 years fixed the amount at Rs. 1,20,000/-. Out of the above amount it deducted Rs. 48,000/- towards lumpsum payment and found the balance due to be Rs. 72,000/-. Towards the funeral expenses, loss of future happiness of life of plaintiffs, loss of love and affection and loss of estate it fixed Rs. 25,000/- as damages and fixed the compensation at Rs. 97,000/- and decreed the suit for the said amount. Challenging the above, the Electricity Board has filed this appeal.