SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. GEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Electricity Board, being aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai, passing a decree for Rs.5,08,400.00 with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

(2.) For the accidental death of one Ponmudi, the plaintiffs are the wife, mother, two minor children. According to them, on 19/9/2009, at about 6.00 p.m., the said Ponmudi went to the open terrace without parapet wall and while going closure to the high tension wire, he caught fire and fell down from the terrace. He was taken to the hospital for treatment. However, he scummed to the injury. A complaint under Crime No.339 of 2009 was registered. Post-mortem report disclosed that his death was due to electric shock. According to the plaintiffs, the accident occurred due to negligence and carelessness of the officials of the Electricity Board as well as the owner of the building, who failed to construct a parapet wall. Due to improper maintenance and failure to provide protective casing, the accident had occurred.

(3.) The deceased was earning Rs.10,000.00 per month and had an expectation of life up to 95 years, the plaintiffs, who are dependents of the deceased are therefore entitled for Rs.15,00,000.00 as compensation. The Electricity Board filed a written statement stating that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, who had crossed the line without knowing that there is no parapet wall. The HT and LT lines were maintained properly and carefully. The allegation that the department has to maintain the wire, is baseless. The deceased, who in a careless manner contacted the line wire, sustained burn injury. The third defendant, who is the owner of the said building, is responsible for maintaining the building and if at all any liability for the loss of life, the third defendant has to compensate.