Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Electricity Board vs Vineetha on 22 May, 2012
Author: K.Harilal
Bench: K.M.Joseph, K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934
AS.No. 65 of 2001 (A)
---------------------
OS.513/1996 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,N. PARAVUR
..................
APPELLANT(S):DEFENDANT:
-----------------------
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VAYTHUTHIBHAVAN, PATTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
SRI.ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
SRI.S.SHARAN,SC,K.S.E.BOARD
RESPONDENT(S):PLAINTIFFS:
-------------------------
1.VINEETHA, D/O.CHATHEN,
KAITHAKKAPARAMBU,
KEERANKUNNU,
THOTTUMUGHAMKARA,
ALWAYE.
2.SUBRAMONIAN,
S.O.CHATHEN, DO. DO.
BY ADV. SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI
THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-05-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Today also there is no appearance for the parties. The
Appeal Suit is dismissed for default.
K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
K.HARILAL, JDUGE.
MS
------------------------------------
K.M.JOSEPH &
K.HARILAL, JJ.
JUDGMNET
DATED 22.5.2012
--------------------------------------
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V ASHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
A.S No.65 of 2001-A
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.513 of 1996 of the Principal Sub Court, North Paravur.
2. The suit for damage filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein has been allowed by the court below. Going by the decree, the plaintiffs are found entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,49,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation with costs from the defendant.
3. One Sri Chathan, the father of the plaintiffs, was electrocuted on 07.11.1995 at 9.15 p.m. He was engaged for plucking coconuts in a property owned by one Yusuf. It appears that one coconut palm leaf came into contact with the electric line and he was thrown away from the coconut tree due to the electric shock and it caused instantaneous death. Even though he was removed to Government Hospital, Aluva, the Doctor who examined him reported that he was no more. A.S No.65 of 2001-A 2
4. He was aged about 50 at the time of death and he was getting Rs.75/- to Rs.100/- per day from the engagement as a coolie. The plaintiffs also pointed out that he alone was the earning member of their family and the plaintiffs were depending on him for their livelihood.
5. The defendants namely, the appellants herein contended that there was no negligence on their part. It was also contended that the suit should have been filed against Yusuf.
6. The court below found that on the issue of negligence, the appellant is answerable. The quantum was fixed after taking the daily wages of the deceased as Rs.100/-. Contribution was fixed accordingly as Rs.2,500/- per month. After deducting the expenses of the deceased, the multiplier adopted is 13 and finally the amount of compensation has been arrived at Rs.2,34,000/-. An amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded towards the loss of consortium.
7. Even though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the court below on the aspect of negligence is not correct, in the light of the decision reported in Varghese v. KSEB, Tvm. [2013(1) KHC 816(DB)], the strict A.S No.65 of 2001-A 3 liability principle will apply herein. Hence we do not find anything wrong in the finding with regard to negligence. We extract the relevant portion of paras 12, 17 and 22, from the above judgment, wherein the relevant principles have been discussed:-
"We have looked into the matter through another angle also, for considering whether the defendant is liable for damages, even where there is lack of evidence to prove any negligence on the part of the defendant. Despite the continuing dominance of fault liability, our law of torts does contain limited principles of strict liability with regard to personal injuries. Some of these are of common law origin and the rest like damages in cases of personal injuries on account of electricity supply, nuclear installations, environmental pollutions, fire, gas, explosions, oil, noxious fumes, vibrations etc., have been the creation of modern Statutes. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, has resulted in the creation of a category of liability, for damage caused by ultra-hazardous business or activities, which is justified on the basis that the persons carrying them on should bear all the risks associated with them, and not merely those arising from their negligence. In Shiffman v. Order of St.John, 1936(1) All ER 557, where the plaintiff became injured in Hyde park by a falling flag-pole belonging to the defendants, it was held that the plaintiff would have been entitled to recover damages on the basis of Rylands v. Fletcher even though he neither owned nor occupied the land on which the injury occurred. Even when no negligence is attributed to the defendant in this case, the defendant is liable for damages, based on the principles of strict liability."
On the facts of this, the court below, on an analysis of the evidence found that the 11 KV line was drawn in a manner A.S No.65 of 2001-A 4 touching the coconut leaves which amounts to negligence. The scene mahazar Ext.A2 was relied upon. The death was found to be due to electrocution and the plea of the appellant was rejected. We fully agree with the above findings.
8. On the aspect concerning the quantum also, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same and the amount arrived at is reasonable. The deceased was a coolie, an able bodied man and was aged only 50 years at the time of the accident. The multiplier adopted cannot be said to be on a higher side. Only Rs.100/- has been taken as his earning per day.
9. Therefore, on the aspects of the adoption of the multiplicand as well as multiplier, there is no scope for interference. Accordingly, we confirm the impugned judgment as far as the total amount of compensation decreed.
10. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that the rate of interest awarded is excessive, ie. 12%. We are of the view that the rate of interest can be at 9%, which will be reasonable. To that extent alone, the decree and judgment is modified. Accordingly, we allow the plaintiffs/respondents to realise an amount of Rs.2,49,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs forty nine thousand only) with 9% interest A.S No.65 of 2001-A 5 from the date of suit till realisation and costs ordered by the court below from the appellant Electricity Board.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge Sd/-
P.V.ASHA Judge rtr/ /true copy/ P.S to Judge A.S No.65 of 2001-A 6 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V ASHA, JJ.
----------------------------------------
A.S No.65 of 2001-A
----------------------------------------
Dated: 4/8/2014 J U D G M E N T