Madras High Court
The Assistant Engineer vs Madammal
Author: T. Mathivanan
Bench: T. Mathivanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED.09.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. MATHIVANAN A.S.No.797 of 2008 1.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Veerapandi Post, Salem Taluk. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Attayampatti, Salem Taluk. 3.The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Salem-2. 4.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Salem .. Appellants Vs. 1.Madammal 2.Minor.Durga Devi 3.Minor.Poongodi 4.Minor.Suresh 5.Minor.Nandakumar .. Respondents Minors 2 to 5 are represented by their next friend and guardian the mother Madammal Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.04.2008 and made in O.S.No.125 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Salem. For Appellants : Mr.N.Muthuswami For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Thangavel for Mr.R.Syed Mustafa J U D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.04.2008 and made in O.S.No.125 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Salem.
2. The excerpt of the facts required germane to this appeal:
2.1. The plaintiffs' house is situated at Old No.3/102-B, New No.2/1028 at Akkarakadu, Akkaraipalayam Village in Veerapandi in Salem Taluk. A high tension (H.T) electric line runs from north to south and a low tension (L.T) electric line was also drawn in between the electric post bearing No.4-4/B and 4-4/C in front of the house of the plaintiffs. The above said electric posts have been erected in the lands of one Bomman for the purpose of providing one way service connection and the service connection number is 265. The said low tension electric line was drawn crossing the land situated on the eastern side of the plaintiffs' house.
2.2. That on 22.04.2006 at about 05.30 a.m. the deceased Periyathambi, who is none other than the husband of the first plaintiff, was collecting dried coconut leaves. Whileso, the said low tension electric line got snapped and fallen on the neck of the deceased Periyathambi and as a result of which he had got electrocuted. Soon after the occurrence, he was removed to Salem Mohan Kumaramangalam Government Medical College Hospital, Salem, but on the way to hospital, he had succumbed to electric burns.
2.3. In this connection a case was registered in Crime No.151 of 2006 on the file of the Mallur Police Station under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The death of the deceased was only due to the negligent and poor maintenance of the defendants.
2.4. When the plaintiffs had approached the defendants and demanded compensation, their request was turned down and therefore a legal notice dated 11.09.2006 was caused to be issued claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation. But, there was no response on the other end and the inaction on the part of the defendants has accelerated the defendants to file the suit seeking the relief of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.
2.5. Prior to his death, the deceased Periathambi was running a mutton shop and thereby earned a sum of Rs.5,000/- per mensem. The first plaintiff is the wife, whereas the defendants 2 to 5 are the minor daughters and sons of the deceased and they are represented by their next friend and mother, the first plaintiff herein.
2.6. The defendants 2 to 5 have adopted the written statement filed by the first defendant, in which they have contended that the deceased Periathambi was collecting the coconut leaves under the low tension electric lines passing on the vacant land. When he was trying to carry the coconut leaves on his head after making it as a bundle, unfortunately the coconut leaves bundle, which was longer in length had forcibly touched the low tension electric line and thereby the electric lines had contacted with each other and got snapped. Then the napped electric line fallen on the deceased Periathambi.
2.7. The snapped low tension electric line made out of Aluminium conductor steel and belonged to reinforced category. Since it is steel reinforced, it will not cut in normal course unless there is some external force. Hence, the above snapping of conductor was occurred only due to attacking the low tension lines by the bundle of coconut leaves by the deceased. The accident took place only due to the negligent act of the deceased Periathambi and therefore no liability could be attached with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
2.8. The electric lines were properly maintained by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and that the defendants are in noway responsible for the accident. The deceased Periathambi was aged about 52 years at the time of accident and hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation.
3. Based on the pleadings of the parties to the suit, the Trial Court has formulated the following three issues:
1. Whether the act of the defendants is negligent in erecting the electric post in respect of service connection No.265?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation as claimed by them?
3. Costs and other reliefs?
4. The first plaintiff in order to establish her claim, had examined herself as P.W.1 and one Venga Gounder was examined as P.W.2. During the course of their examination Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On the other hand, one Mr.Ganapathi, who is the Executive Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was examined as D.W.1 and during the course of his examination Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
5. On appreciation of the evidences both oral and documentary, the Trial Court had decreed the suit in part and directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the plaintiffs with costs.
6. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and decree dated 17.04.2008, the defendants had preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. This Court has gone through the grounds of the memorandum of appeal and found that the present appeal could be disposed of on the following two grounds:
1. Is it correct to say that the low tension electric line in question was belonged to aluminium conductor steel reinforced category and was properly maintained by the defendants as exposed in Ex.B1?
2. Is it correct to say that the Trial Court without any evidence in support has granted a huge compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-?
Ground No.1:
8. The accident of electrocution has not been disputed by the defendants. What they would contend is the deceased Periathambi, after collecting the dried coconut leaves and making it as a bundle, had attempted to carry on his head. In this process, unexpectedly and unfortunately, the coconut leaves bundle, which was longer in size had come into contact with the low tension electric line in force and thereby the electric lines had contacted with each other and eventually got snapped and fallen on the deceased Periathambi.
9. It was also contended by the defendants that the low tension electric line was belonged to aluminium conductor steel reinforced category and that since it was steel reinforced, it would not cut in normal course, unless there was some external force. It was also contended that the snapping of conductor was occurred only due to attacking in force lines by the bundle of coconut leaves and that no negligence could be attributed to the defendants.
10. The learned counsel for the defendants has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.B1, monthly maintenance particulars of low tension line. In this regard, D.W.1. would depose that the place of occurrence was subject to the Vaniyampady Transformer No.5 and that the low tension line as well as the high tension line were admittedly maintained once in a month. He has also added that even two days prior to the occurrence the maintenance work was carried out pertaining to the low tension electric conductor, which was said to have been snapped and fallen down on the deceased.
11. Ex.B2 is the investigation report in respect of the electrical fatal accident, which resulted in the death of Periathambi. With regard to the brief details of the accident, in Column No.13 it is stated that on 22.04.2006 at about 06.00 a.m. when the person, who died, was trying to carry the coconut leaves bundle, it touched the wire with force and thereby the electric line had contacted with others, which resulted in short circuit and immediately the conductor got snapped and fallen on the deceased.
12. With regard to the maintenance of the low tension wire, the reasons offered by the defendants are not discernible. Even though the low tension wire is made out of Aluminium Conductor steel reinforced category, no one can imagine that such low tension wire would run in lower level. It is unambiguously established that the deceased was trying to carry coconut leaves on his head. But, it cannot be heard to say that while trying to lift the coconut leaf bundles it touched the low tension wire forcibly. If really the low tension electric conductor was maintained properly, it would not have run in low lying level i.e.far below the normal height. The defendants have not stated the exact height at which the low tension wife should run. Under this circumstance, this Court has also endorsed the view taken by the Trial Court.
Issue No.2:
13. The plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence to show the age of the deceased at the time of electrical accident. In Ex.A2 post-mortem report, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 50 years and therefore the age, which is mentioned in the post-mortem report can be taken into account to arrive at the quantum of compensation. Normally in the case of electrical fatal accident, the method of compensation can be derived from the Second Schedule to Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Invariably the judicial interpretations in respect of the damages relating to electrical fatal accident would indicate to follow the method of calculation standardized in the second schedule to Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
14. On coming to the instant case on hand, as regards the quantum of compensation, the Trial Court has not employed any method of calculation, instead, in consideration of the death of the deceased a lumpsum amount of Rs.8,00,000/- has been awarded. Being aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the present appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the conclusion of the Trial Court.
15. It is pertinent to note here that in view of Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, there may not be any secondary opinion to say that the claimants being the wife and the minor children of the deceased are entitled to compensation. Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 enacts as follows:
2. Not more than one suit to be brought.- Provided always that not more than one action or suit shall be brought for, and in respect of the same subject- matter of complaint:
Claim for loss to estate may be added.- Provided that, in any such action or suit, the executor, administrator or representative of the deceased may insert a claim for and recover any pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased occasioned by such wrongful act, neglect or default, which sum, when recovered, shall be deemed part of the assets of the estate of the deceased.
16. In the instant case on hand, the deceased was aged about 50 years as evident from Ex.A2, post-mortem report. No contra evidence is led on the part of the defendants to refute this fact. It is also established that the deceased was running a mutton shop. But, P.W.1 being the widow of the deceased has failed to establish her claim that her husband was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the Second Schedule to Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, since the deceased was aged about 50 years, the multiplier of '13' can be taken into consideration to assess the pecuniary loss to the plaintiffs.
17. In Milap Kaur And Ors. vs The Secretary, Himachal Pradesh, I (1988) ACC 382, the Apex Court has held that the method of assessing damages, usually followed in England, as appears from Mallett v. Mc. Managle (supra), is to calculate the net pecuniary loss upon an annual basis and to 'arrrive at the total award by multiplying the figure assessed as the amount of the annual 'dependancy' by a number of 'year's purchase', that is, the number of years the benefit was expected to last, taking into the consideration the imponderable factors in fixing either the multiplier or the multiplicand.
18. In the present case on hand, in the absence of adequate proof regarding the monthly income, this Court, on considering the plaintiffs being the widow and four children of the deceased finds that a sum of Rs.3,500/- can be determined as the monthly income of the deceased. The decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, [2009] INSC 756 and Susamma Thomas's case would lend a helping hand to this conclusion. On the basis of Rs.3,500/- per mensem the annual dependency would be Rs.45,500/-.
19. Considering the dependents viz.the plaintiffs, this Court is of view that deduction of 1/4th can be given towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Periathambi. After giving 1/4th deduction, the 3/4th reminder would be Rs.31,500/-. On the application of multiplier of '13' the life dependency would be Rs.4,09,500/-.
20. It is significant to note here that the age of the first plaintiff at the time of death of her husband is 40 years. The age of minor plaintiffs viz. 2 to 5 is 12 years, 10 years, 8 years and 5 years respectively, all were in their tender age. Therefore, this Court is of view that a sum of Rs.15,000/- can be allowed towards the consortium to the first plaintiff. In sofar as the minor plaintiffs 2 to 5 are concerned they are in aggregate entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of love and affection. Totally, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the compensation as detailed below:
1. Towards the pecuniary loss of the family Rs.4,09,500/-
2. Towards the consortium for the first plaintiff Rs. 15,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection for the plaintiffs 2 to 5 Rs. 40,000/-
----------------
Rs. 4,64,500/-
----------------
Hence, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,64,500 to the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of plaint till the date of realization.
21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs and the Judgment and Decree dated 17.04.2008 and made in O.S.No.125 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Salem is modified as detailed below:
The plaintiffs are entitled to get a sum of Rs.4,64,500/-. This amount shall have to be apportioned among the plaintiffs in the following manner:
(a) The first plaintiff is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,44,500/-,
(b) The minor plaintiffs 2 to 5 are each entitled to get a sum of Rs.80,000/-,
22. It appears from the records that as directed by this Court at the time of admission of this appeal, the appellants have deposited a sum of Rs.8,16,543/- on 15.10.2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Salem. Of which, the respondents were directed to withdraw 1/5th share of the deposited amount without furnishing any security and the remaining 4/5th share of the deposited amount was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit initially for a period of three years and periodically be renewed by the Court below till the disposal of the appeal. The first respondent being the mother and next friend of the remaining respondents was permitted to withdraw the interest accrued of the shares of the minors once in three months for their maintenance till further orders.
23. Now the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- granted by the Trial Court has been reduced to Rs.4,64,500/-. It is made clear that the above Order passed by this Court shall have to be in force till the disposal of the appeal. Since, the award amount is reduced to Rs.4,64,500/-, the excess amount deposited by the appellants shall be refunded with proportionate interest from the date of deposit.
24. The first plaintiff is entitled to withdraw her entire share. The share of the minor plaintiffs shall be invested in any one of the nationalized banks in a fixed deposit scheme till they attain majority. The first plaintiff being the mother and next friend of the minor plaintiffs is entitled to receive the interest accrued on the shares of the minors once in three months for their welfare. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
krk To:
1. The learned Additional District Judge, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Salem,
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court