SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. SYED SULTHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Nagapattinam and the Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Nagur, Nagapattinam, who figured as defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court viz., the Court of the Principal Sub-Judge, Nagapattinam dated 22.10.2002 made in O.S.No.99 of 2001 on the file of the trial Court.

(2.) The facts relating to the filing of the appeal can be briefly stated as follows:- The respondents 1 to 3 /plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the wife and minor children of Late Mohammed Fakhruddin. Respondent No.4/4th plaintiff is the mother of Late Mohammed Fakhruddin. On 20.12.1999 in the early morning at about 3 a.m, the above said Mohammed Fakhruddin suffered an electric shock in front of his house in Nagur as he came in contact with a live high tension wire that got disconnected from the post and fell on him. Due to the said electric shock he died on the spot and the doctors at Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Nagapattinum declared him dead when his body was brought to the said hospital. The cause of death was also ascertained to be electric shock after conducting postmortem examination. A Postmortem report was also issued. The Village Administrative Officer informed the police of the said occurrence and a case was registered on the file of Nagoor Police Station as Crime No.240 of 1999 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Claiming that the unfortunate incident took place due to the failure on the part of the appellants herein/defendants 1 and 2, to properly maintain the high tension electrical line, as a result of which the high tension wire got cut even when there was no natural calamity like heavy rain, storm or heavy wind blow. The respondents 1 to 3 herein/plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed the above suit O.S.No.99 of 2001 on the file the trial Court viz., the Court of Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam praying for a decree directing the appellants 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation together with interest on the said amount and cost.

(3.) The above said suit was filed in forma pauperis initially against the appellants 1 and 2 /defendants 1 and 2 alone. Since the suit was filed in forma pauperis, the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collect was added as a party respondent to the application seeking permission to file the suit as an indigent person. Consequently, even after such a permission was granted, the Government of Tamil Nadu continued to be arrayed as 3rd defendant as a formal party. Being added as a formal party, the Government of Tamil Nadu who figures as 5th respondent in the appeal (3rd defendant in the suit) did not file any written statement. The second defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the first defendant. In the said written statement they contended that the high tension line was properly maintained effecting periodical repairs and that due to heavy rain and wind blow, the high tension wire got cut; that the same was an accident as a result of an act of god beyond the control of the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 and that there was no negligence and want of care on the part of the appellants/defendants 1 and 2. It was also contended therein that the amount claimed as compensation was exorbitant and highly unreasonable. The trial Court framed the issues which read as follows: