LAWS(MAD)-1984-8-10

VITTABAI AMMAL Vs. S RADHAKRISHNAN

Decided On August 10, 1984
VITTABAI AMMAL Appellant
V/S
S.RADHAKRISHNAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant appeals.

(2.) The facts of the case are summarily as follows : On 23rd August 1971, at about 9.15 a.m. one girl by name Mala, aged about 10 years, daughter of the plaintiffs herein, while standing near the shop of the second defendant to purchase cigarettes for her father, came into contact with the cross iron bar attached to the zinc sun shade in front of the said shop and received a heavy electric shock, as a result of which, she died on the way to the General Hospital. The first defendant is the owner of the premises including the three shops in front of the premises. The second defendant is a tenant under the first defendant of one of the shops and is doing business in betel nut, cigarettes etc. The plaintiffs instituted this suit against both the defendants for having them declared to be jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.5000 for the damages caused to them on account of the death of their child. Both the defendants contended that the death was not due to the electric shock from the cross iron bar, but from some other source. Upon perusing the evidence produced by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants and also after hearing the independent witnesses viz., the experts from the Electricity Department, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the death was caused by the leakage of electricity in the cross iron bar and found that the second defendant as well as the third defendant viz., the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board were not liable and ordered the first defendant to pay an amount of Rs.5000 to the plaintiff by judgment dt. 4-12-1975.

(3.) No appeal was filed by the plaintiffs against the decree exonerating completely defendants 2 and 3. Appeal was filed by the defendant No. 1. The lower appellate Court by judgment dt 3rd December 1977, concurred with the findings and reasoning of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is against that judgment that the present appeal is preferred.