SUBBANNA GOUNDAR Vs. S AYYASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal against the dismissal of their suit O.S. No. 141 of 1977 of the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore. the said suit claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- for the defendant-respondent's alleged negligence in placing a live electric wire near the fence of his (respondent's) garden land and the consequent death of their (appellant's) son, Murugan, aged 15 1/2 years due to electrocution thereof.

(2.) The relevant plaint averments may be summarised as follows :- The defendant is the owner of the garden land situated on the eastern side of the north-south road leading to Ettirnadai railway station. There is an electric motor and pumpset in the well in that land. In July, 1975, there were sugarcane crops in the said land. There is a barbed wire fence between the said road and the said land. Near this wire fence, the defendant had also placed a metal wire, which was connected to the electric main of his well. On 31-7-1975 at about 9.00 p.m., the above said Murugan was going on the said road, accompanied by one Marudachalam and one Kittusami to reach their lands. While they were passing along side the defendant's land the said Murugan came in contact with the above said metal wire and as it was energised, he was electrocuted and died soon after in the defendant's land itself. His death was due to the defendant's wrongful act and negligence in placing the live wire near the road side. The defendant is liable under law to pay compensation to the plaintiffs for the loss caused to them due to the death of their son. Murugan was aged about 15 1/2 years at the time of his death and he was actively assisting the plaintiffs in their agricultural operations. They have suffered monetary loss of Rs. 60/- per month on account of his death. Besides, they have undergone mental pain and suffering and they are entitled to recover Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The relevant averments in the written statement may be summarised as follows :- The defendant denies that Murugan met with his death by coming into contact with the live wire near the above said fence on the night of 31-7-1975. Actually on that night Murugan trespassed into the defendant's land and attempted to commit theft of copper' wires which were running from the electric service connection down to the motor in the well. Such theft of copper wires were frequent in that area at that time. When Murugan attempted to commit theft of the wire, he got electrocuted and thrown out and on hearing the noise of the victim, the defendant, who was in the garden shed rushed near the well and found Murugan lying there. He immediately informed the neighbours and the plaintiffs and reported the matter to the Police. But the Criminal Case that followed against the defendant as accused ended in his acquittal. The defendant has not committed any wilful act and negligence by energising the wire fence. Murugan was not an earning member. In any event, the amount claimed is excessive.