BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. KOSALAI @ KOWSALYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 29.10.2012 passed in A.S.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam modifying the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2011 passed in O.S.No.77 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuturai. .

(2.) The appellant is the fourth defendant, in the suit in O.S.No.77 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai, the respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs. The respondents 4 to 6 are the defendants 1 to 3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed the said suit for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the death of one Mani, the husband of the first respondent and the father of the respondents 2 & 3. According to the respondents 1 to 3, on 29.11.2004, at about 4 p.m., the said Mani, after cutting grass for the cattle, went to the field belonging to the appellant/fourth defendant, to drink water from the bore well shed, where he was electrocuted and became unconscious. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Mayiladuthurai where he was declared as brought dead. The second respondent/second plaintiff has lodged a complaint in the Kuthalam Police Station and the said complaint was registered in Cr No.539 of 2004. Originally, the suit was filed against the respondents 4 to 6. It was alleged by the respondents 1 to 3 that due to negligence on the part of the respondents 4 to 6 in maintaining the electric wires, the incident took place. The deceased Mani was working as an Agricultural Coolie and was maintaining Hens and Cows. The accident took place only when the deceased Mani went to cut grass for milching Cows. He was earning a sum of Rs.3000/- per month and sought for Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.

(3.) The sixth respondent filed the written statement and the same was adopted by the respondents 4 & 5. In the written statement, they have stated that the accident did not occur due to negligence on the part of the respondents 4 to 6. According to them, the accident took place in the Bore shed belonging to the appellant, when the motor was running. There was electricity leakage when the deceased got electrocuted. The appellant was not made as a defendant in the suit. The respondents 1 to 3 suppressed the fact and filed the suit that on the day when the deceased was electrocuted, electric wires were not disconnected or snapped at the place of accident and the respondents 4 to 6 are not responsible for the accident and not liable for any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the suit.