Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Electricity Board, ... vs Suresh Kumar on 6 November, 1985
Equivalent citations: AIR1986KER72, AIR 1986 KERALA 72, (1985) KER LJ 975
JUDGMENT Sreedharan, J.
1. Kerala State Electricity Board, the defendant in O.S. 34 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was one for realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit by way of compensation on account of injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
2, The material averments made b made by the plaintiff in the plaint are the following:-- Minor plaintiffs father Gopinathan Pillai owns a small plot of land near Neervilakam Lower Primary School. He was doing some agricultural operations in that plot oh 8-5-1978. The minor plaintiff with his twin sister brought coffee to their father. While returning from the said plot through the paddy field known as Karackaveli vayal at bout 5 p.m. the minor plaintiff happened to come into contact with a 11 K.V. line electric wire and sustained serious injuries. The stay wire which supported the electric post holding the 11 K. V. line at that place had been cut on or about 6th May, 1978 by some of the workers of the defendant Board. As a result of that the post1 gradually leaned and the wire came down sagging to a height of about 1 metre from the ground. Even though the mischief had been done 2 days prior to the incident, neither the defendant nor its officials cared to take any step to set right the line. As a result of the accident the minor plaintiff suffered severe shock and burns. He was taken to St. Thomas Hospital Mavelikara. From there on 10th May he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for further treatment. His right arm below the elbow had to be' amputated. He was treated as an in-patient in the Medical College Hospital till 4-7-1978. Even thereafter he had to continue treatment. The minor was an intelligent and active boy about whom his parents and teachers had high hopes. As a result of this accident he lost one arm and ugly scars are left on his body. He has been deprived of the chances of living an active, useful and happy life. It affected his physical and mental capacities. His capacity to work as a normal person has been permanently impaired and his chances of getting a suitable bride and enjoying a happy married life have been greatly reduced. For the treatment of the plaintiff his parents had to incur an expenditure of over Rs. 2,000/-. The misconduct and negligence of the defendant and its employees in not maintaining the 11 K.V. line properly and not taking necessary' precautions and other steps which they arc legally bound to rake has caused the accident. The defendant is responsible for all loss and injury suffered by the plaintiff. The defendant is liable to pay compensation for the same. Taking into consideration all circumstances the plaintiff estimates compensation at not less than Rs. l,00.000/-in addition to Rs. 2.000/-spent by his father. Hence the suit as stated earlier.
3. The defendants in their written statement raised the following contentions :--It is true that the plaintiff came into contact with live electric wire and sustained some burns. The incident took place at a lime when a section of the employees of the Board were on indefinite strike. Throughout the State sabotages and putting down of electric lines were frequent at that time in spite of earnest attempts made by the State and the Board to prevent and detect the same. The defendant Board was always alert in maintaining the generation, transmission and distribution lines properly. The allegation that the stay wire was cut 2 days before 8-5-1978 is not-correct The mischief might have been done only shortly before the incident Some unknown miscreants cut the stay wire resulting in the electric line coming very low. The local officers of the Board acting with due diligence came to know of the sabotage only on the morning of 9-5-1978. Immediately information was given to the police and rectification steps were taken. The indefinite strike was launched by the employees from 4-5-1978 and sabotages were on the increase as a part of the strike. The public were aware of this fact through newspapers and otherwise. They-also knew fully well that miscreants were persistently attempting sabotages over electric lines and installations throughout the State. All should have been careful in approaching electric installations in view of the possible danger due to sabotages. No member of the public is allowed to touch Board's electrical system especially when the electric wire was found at a very low height The plaintiff ought to have taken care not to come into contact with it In spite of more than ordinary diligence on the part of the officials of the Board the mischief could not be detected because there was nothing wrong in the circuit of current on account of the sabotage. There was absolutely no negligence on the part of the defendant or its officials to fix them with liability for damages. The accident in the case was the result of the minor plaintiffs own negligence for which the defendant cannot be held liable. It is not correct to say that the plaintiff became an invalid. It is true that one of his amis happened to be amputated and he is having incapacity to that extent The lowering of the wire which resulted in the accident was not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant or its officials, but due to sabotage which was beyond the control or knowledge of the defendant. Even though the defendant " was not bound to pay compensation legally, action was taken to pay ex gratia compensation admissible under rules on compassionate rounds. The compensation claimed is very high and exaggerated. Defendant is not liable for any damages caused to the plaintiff and no compensation is payable.
4. On the side of the plaintiff PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts. Al to A5 were marked. An Assistant Executive Engineer of the defendant Board gave evidence as DW1 and produced Ext Bl. After considering the above evidence the Court below passed a decree in the following terms :--
"In the result the suit is decreed allowing the plaintiff to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 64,900/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit The defendant will also pay the entire Court-fee payable on the plaint The plaintiff will bear other costs. The amount decreed will be deposited by the defendant within 3 months from the date of this decree. Out of the said deposit a- sum of Rs. 1,700/-will be paid to the next friend of the minor plaintiff and the balance amount of Rs. 63.200/- will be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of 7 years. Till the fixed deposit matures the plaintiff will be entitled only to receive interest accrued due from time to time, if he so desires. The entire balance amount will be released to the plaintiff after his proving that he has attained the age of majority. The Court-fee to be deposited by the defendant will be released to the State on' obtaining request in that behalf by the District Collector, Aleppey.
A copy of the decree will be sent to the District Collector, Alleppey for realisation of court-fees. If the defendant pays court-fee directly to the State as per the requisition of' the District Collector, the defendant need not deposit the amount in this regard in court."
5. The points that arise for decision in this appeal are :-- (1) whether the defendant is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff? (2) what is the amount that is due to the plaintiff by way of damages? (3) reliefs and costs.
Point (1). The fact that the minor plaintiff sustained injuries on account of his coming into contact with 11 K.V. electric wire belonging to and maintained by the defendant is admitted. The defendants in the written statement stated thus : -
"It is true that the minor plaintiff came into contact with the live wire and sustained some burns".
It is also admitted that :-
"It is true that one of his arms happened to be amputated and he is having incapacity to that extent and nothing more". .
6. According to the plaintiff the 11 K..V. electric line which passes across the paddy field was sagging to a height of about 1 metre from the ground from 6th May 1978. PW 4, a resident of the locality swears to this fact The Assistant Executive Engineer examined as DW 1 swears that the employees of the. Board or their supporters have caused the sabotage.
The defendant's case is that the employees had gone on strike from 4-5-1978, that they were engaged in sabotaging the electric lines and that the sagging of the electric line which caused the accident was the result of these activities of the- employees and their supporters and so the Board is not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff. We find it very difficult to accept this argument. The Electricity Rules, 19% casts a duty on the Electricity Board to properly maintain the electrical installations and hnes carrying the electrical energy. Rule 77( 3) specifically imposes a duty on the Board to see that 11 K. V. overhead hnes are held at a height not less than 4.572 metres (15 feet) above the ground. If the line is shown to be sagging to a height of up to 3 feet above the ground, prima facie negligence on the part of the Board can be inferred. The evidence in the case clearly goes to show that the sagging was the consequence of sabotgaging committed by the employees of the Board itself. Whether the sabotage was committed by the employees during the period of their strike or not, the Electricity Board cannot get itself exonerated from the statutory duties cast upon it by the provisions of Electricity Supply Act and the Electricity Rules, 1956. In this view of the matter we have no hesitation to hold that the sagging of the 11 K. V. line was the result of the negligence on the part of the Kerala State Electricity Board.
7. The line with which we are concerned in this appeal was one passing across a paddy field. The plaintiff was going along the bund in the paddy field. It is common knowledge that people will be passing through the bund. In such places it was the bounden duty of the Board to see that the electric lines are maintained at sufficient height to see that people passing along the bund may not come into contact with live electric lines. This duty of the Board has not been properly discharged in the instant case. The argument of the learned counsel for the Board that the plaintiff was not expected to touch the sagging electric wire and that it was on account of his negligence that the incident occurred cannot be accepted. We are to agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge in holding the Board negligent in keeping the electric line at a dangerously low level. Point No. 1 is accordingly found against the appellant.
Point No. 2 : -- The Court below has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,700/- being the amount spent by the minor plaintiffs lather towards the expenses incurred by him for treating the. injured. This part of the decree does not call. for interference m the light of the evidence given by PW3, the taxi driver who took the injured to the Medical College Hospital and PW 6, the father of the injured. We confirm the same.
8. A sum of Rs. 20.000/ - has been awarded to the plaintiff on, account of pain and suffering. Me Gregor on Damages, 14th edition, para 1211 states thus:-
"Pain and suffering is the first of the two main heads of non-pecuniary loss. Both past and prospective pain and suffering are covered, although the past loss is not claimed as special damage in the pleadings as it is not quantifiable with exactitude past and prospective loss are therefore claimed together as general damage".
This shows that on account of pain and suffering the injured is entitled to general damage. In Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal v. Sudhakar, (1977) SCC 64 : (AIR 1977 SC 1189) the Supreme Court upheld the award of Rs. 20,000/-as general damages to a boy of 4 years who sustained multiple fractures of his right tibia and fabula, lower third near the angle joint with infection of the wound In that case the boy had to remain in the hospital from June 25 to August 4, 1961. In the case before us the injured was in the hospital from 8-5-1978 to 4-7-1978, had his right arm below the angle amputated and had severe burns on the left side of his body which left ugly scars over the left side of the body. The injured as PW 5 has sworn to the sufferings he had experienced. Taking into consideration the pain and suffering which the injured was subjected to, we do not think that the amount of Rs. 20,000/-awarded by the Court below is is any way excessive.
9. On account of the future pecuniary loss the learned Subordinate Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 43.200/ - as compensation. For arriving at this figure the learned Judge assumed that the injured can reasonably expect to get a job earning Rs. 600/- per month. According .to the learned Judge a multiple of 15 on the above basis will come to Rs. 1,08,000'- -but taking into consideration several imponderables, and making deductions on account of lump sum payment he awarded 40% of the above sum, i.e. only Rs. 43,200/-. We do not think that the trial Court acted on wrong principle of law in awarding the said amount as compensation. Neither do we think that the amount awarded was so extremely high which calls for interference by this Court. Point No. 2 is therefore found against the appellant
10. Before parting with this case we deem it our duty to express our displeasure at the callous attitude of the defendant K.S.E Beard m'taking up the defence that it was due to the negligence of the minor plaintiff that the accident occurred m not having taken sufficient care and caution against possible sabotage by the striking employees of the Board The K.S.E. Board engaged in the generation, transmision and supply of electrical energy owes a duty to see that its installations are not rendered dangerous to the public. The rules issued in that behalf and adverted to by us also require the Board to ensure public safety. The Board has taken no steps to prevent recurrence of such incidents of sabotage by its employees while on strike, and strikes by its employees are not infrequent in recent times. The Board should know that its employees are not to be let loose on the public with such a dangerous material as electrical energy to be tampered with by them. It is in public interest that such employees guilty of sabotage do not escape detection and punishment. We are distressed that no attempt had been made to apprehend the culprits and to proceed against them in accordance with law. The arms of law also seem amputated in this case along with the right arm of the minor plaintiff, incapacitated for the rest of his life.
In view of our findings on points 1 and 2, we confirm the decree passed by the Court below and dismiss the appeal with costs.