Madras High Court
A.Subramani vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 23 February, 2012
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23/02/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.14011 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 A.Subramani ... Petitioner vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Chairman, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-02. 2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Dindigul District. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dindigul District. 4.Mr.Indhirasekaran 5.Mr.Sakthi ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide adequate compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner for the loss of his mother's life viz., A.Veerayeeammal due to electrocution caused by the negligence of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 for failing in their duty within the stipulated period in accordance with law. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Lajapathi roy ^For Respondents 1to3 ... Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha For Respondents 4&5 ... Mr.D.Selvaraj ****** :ORDER
******* The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees ten lakhs only] as compensation on account of the death of his mother, due to electrocution.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The mother of the petitioner by name A.Veerayeeammal was living with him at Kandamanayakanur Village, Dindigul. The petitioner was working as a milk vendor and his mother, who was hale and healthy, even at the age of 70 years, used to assist him in his business.
3. According to the petitioner, on 20 September, 2010, the low tension power line passing through the said area snapped and it was lying on the agriculture farm of Thiru.P.Chinnasamy of Ayyaloor Village. The farm owner Chinnasamy and the local people informed the incident to the Junior Engineer of Vada Madurai Division at Dindigul. The incident was also reported to the wire man attached to the said Division. However, the concerned officials have not taken any action.
4. While so, the mother of the petitioner went to the farm for answering the call of nature on 05 October, 2010. Unfortunately, she touched the live wire and died instantaneously, due to electrocution. The Vadamadurai Police registered a case in Crime No.414 of 2010 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and concluded that the death was due to electrocution. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation before the respondents 1 to 4, praying for compensation. There was no follow-up action taken by the Electricity Board to pay him compensation. Therefore, he was constrained to file this Writ Petition.
5. According to the petitioner, the death of his mother due to electrocution was solely on account of the negligence of the officials of Electricity Board. The concerned officials were in the know of things and in spite of their knowledge about the power line cut and that the line was lying in the agriculture farm, they have not taken any action to switch off the line or to take other measures. Therefore, he wanted the Electricity Board to pay him adequate compensation.
6. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dindigul, in his counter-affidavit, pleaded that the Board is not liable to pay compensation. According to the Electricity Board, the owner of the coconut Thope was duty bound to cut the coconut leaves regularly to avoid accident. The death in the subject case was caused due to the negligence on the part of the owner of farm. The wire was snapped suddenly due to the fall of coconut leaves.
Therefore, the Board is not liable to pay compensation.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.
CONSIDERATION:
8. There is no dispute with regard to the incident or the cause of death. The first information report in Crime No.414 of 2010 on the file of Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District, clearly shows that Mrs.Veerayeeammal died due to electrocution.
9. The Electricity Board wanted the Board to be relieved of responsibility to pay compensation. According to the Electricity Board, the owner of the coconut Thope was expected to cut the coconut leaves regularly to avoid snapping. The Electricity Board in order to avoid the liability contended that the wire was snapped suddenly due to the fall of coconut leaves and, therefore, liability is on the owner to pay compensation.
THE STATUTE:
10. Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 contains provisions relating to overhead lines. The said provision reads thus:
"68. Overhead lines.- (1) An overhead line shall, with prior approval of the Appropriate Government, be installed or kept installed above ground in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2). (2) The provisions contained in sub-section (1) shall not apply-
(a) in relation to an electric line which has a nominal voltage not exceeding 11 kilovolts and is used or intended to be used for supplying to a single consumer;
(b) in relation to so much of an electric line as is or will be within premises in the occupation or control of the person responsible for its installation; or
(c) in such other cases, as may be prescribed.
(3) The Appropriate Government shall, while granting approval under sub-
section (1), impose such conditions (including conditions as to the ownership and operation of the line) as appear to it to be necessary. (4) The Appropriate Government may vary or revoke the approval at any time after the end of such period as may be stipulated in the approval granted by it. (5) Where any tree standing or lying near an overhead line or where any structure or other object which has been placed or has fallen near an overhead line subsequent to the placing of such line, interrupts or interferes with, or is likely to interrupt or interfere with, the conveyance or transmission of electricity or the accessibility of any works, an Executive Magistrate or authority specified by the Appropriate Government may, on the application of the licensee, cause the tree, structure or object to be removed or otherwise dealt with as he or it thinks fit.
(6) When disposing of an application under sub-section (5), an Executive Magistrate or authority specified under that sub-section shall, in the case of any tree in existence before the placing of the overhead line, award to the person interested in the tree such compensation as he thinks reasonable, and such person may recover the same from the licensee."
11. The core question is whether the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was responsible for the accident in question.
12. The Electricity Board, being the suppliers of electricity, was expected to maintain the supply system in a very good condition. The Board was bound to maintain the live wire and other electrical system used for the purpose of transmission of electricity. The consumers or the property owners have no control over the electrical system and the transmission line. In case of an incident involving electricity line, the burden is on the Electricity Board to plead and prove that it was not their fault and the snapping cannot be described to be an act of negligence. When an incident of this nature is reported, inference can surely be drawn that there has been an element of carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board in maintaining the supply line.
13. The Board being the licencee was expected to conduct pre-monsoon inspection for the purpose of taking preventive measures within the meaning of Regulation 20 of Supply Code. The Board cannot plead that the owner of the property was responsible for the maintenance of line. There is nothing on record to show that the Board officials have conducted pre-monsoon inspection at any time before the incident.
14. The Electricity Board stated that the owner of the coconut Thope was bound to cut the coconut leaves. The Electricity Board established a local office at Ayyaloor. The local office has got field staff and they were expected to inspect the line periodically. In case any trees were slanting towards the line, it was their obligation to cut and remove such trees. There is no requirement for taking permission from the owner for the purpose of cutting such trees. Like the Railways doing maintenance work in respect of railway line, the Electricity Board has to maintain the electricity line. In case the wire is snapped, on account of the fall of trees or coconut leaves, the Electricity Board alone is responsible to third parties. Even in respect of motor vehicle cases, the primary liability is on the Insurance Company to satisfy the claim and thereafter, to get reimbursement from the insured. Similarly, primary responsibility lies on the Electricity Board to make payment. The claimants cannot be dragged to a never ending litigation claiming compensation.
15. The concept of strict liability in the context of snap electrocution came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari [2002(2) SCC 162]. The Supreme Court interpreted the rule of strict liability and directed the Electricity Board to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased, after arriving at a finding that the live wire got snapped and fell on the public road which was partially inundated and the deceased rod over the wire, which twitched and snatched him resulting in his instantaneous electrocution. The Supreme Court indicated the theory of foreseeable risk in the following words:
"7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability case on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions."
16. The factual matrix clearly indicates that the Electricity Board failed to cut the coconut leaves and that was the sole reason for the incident. Therefore, necessarily the Electricity Board is liable to pay compensation.
17. The next question is in respect of quantum.
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION - PRINCIPLES:
18. There is no strait-jacket formula in a case of this nature for determination of compensation. The Court has to take the assistance of other enactments, to arrive at a decision with regard to compensation.
19. The deceased was aged about 70 years as on the date of accident. According to the petitioner, the deceased was hale and healthy and she was assisting him in his business.
INVALUABLE CONTRIBUTION OF MOTHER:
20. The contribution of mother to the family is invaluable. The aged people would be of immense help to the family. They would guide the family members to lead a peaceful social life. The presence of the elders in the house itself would be a boon. In fact, they are invaluable assets to the family. While considering the question of assessment, very often, the contribution of mother is ignored. The mother is considered as light of the house. The mother occupies a pivotal position in our society.
21. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Minor Deepika & Ors. [2009(1) TN MAC 671 (DB)], a Division Bench of this Court considered the role of housewife in the present family sector and observed that while the income of the spouse may be generally adopted as per the Second Schedule, time has come to scientifically assess the value of the unpaid homemaker both in accident claims and in division of matrimonial property. The Division Bench said:
"11. The role of a housewife includes managing budgets, co-ordinating activities, balancing accounts, helping children with education, managing help at home, nursing care, etc. One formula that has been arrived at determines the value of the housewife as, Value of housewife = husband's income - wife's income + value of husband's household services, which means the wife's value will increase inversely proportionate to the extent of participation by the husband in the household duties. The Australian Family Property Law provides that while distributing properties in matrimonial matters, for instance, one has to factor in "the contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage, including any contribution made in the capacity of a homemaker or parent."
22. The Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., [2010 AIR SCW 5335] considered in extenso the contribution made by the wife/mother to the family and indicated that during the process of computing the amount of compensation, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of housewife/mother. The Supreme Court observed:
"23. In India the Courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children.
24. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of housewife/mother. In that context, the term 'services' is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier."
23. Therefore, contribution of aged people to the family should also be taken into consideration while assessing the pecuniary loss. It is true that life cannot be measured in terms of money. However, for the purpose of arriving at a just compensation, necessarily we should resort to certain arithmetics. In fact, there is an element of guesswork involved in such cases.
24. Though this is not a case of motor accident, the principles governing the matter of assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act necessarily have to be adopted in a case like this.
25. The Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act indicates that notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to the accident should be taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum.
26. According to the petitioner, his mother was helping him in his milk business. The business in milk does not require any technical knowledge. In our villages, women are working as milk vendors. We are also seeing aged people working as Agriculturists. Merely because the deceased was aged about 70, it cannot be said that her contribution to the family was nil. The assistance given by the deceased to the family should be assessed in terms of money. I am, therefore, of the view that the monthly income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. Since she was aged 70 years, multiplier of '5' should be taken. One third of the amount should be deducted towards the expenses, which the deceased would have incurred for her maintenance, like purchase of medicines, oil and soap, etc. In case the monthly income is taken as Rs.3,000/- and it is multiplied by adopting the multiplier '5', after deducting one third amount towards personal expenses, it would come to Rs.1,20,000/-. The petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, the compensation is quantified at Rs.1,22,000/- [Rupees one lakh and twenty two thousand only].
DISPOSITION:
27. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- [Rupees one lakh and twenty two thousand only] to the petitioner with interest at 6% from 26 November, 2010. Such payment shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order.
28. The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
SML To
1.The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-02.
2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Dindigul District.
3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dindigul District.