Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Palaniammal on 19 November, 2024
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
A.S.No. 37 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
A.S.No. 37 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No. 227 of 2020
1. The District Collector,
Perambalur.
2. The District Educational Officer,
District Educational Office,
Perambalur.
3. The Head Master,
Government High School,
Padalur, Perambalur Dt. ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Palaniammal
S/o. late Subbiah
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Perambalur, Perambalur Dt.
3. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Perambalur, Perambalur Dt. .. Respondents
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No. 37 of 2020
PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Sec. 96 of Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2018
passed by the Makila Court, Perambalur in O.S.No.7 of 2013.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran,
Special Govt. Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran for R1
R2 & R3 – dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The appellants 1 to 3 herein are the defendants 1, 4 and 5 in the suit in O.S.No.7 of 2013 on the file of Mahila Court, Perambalur, which was filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff claiming compensation for the death of her son Arunkumar, who died in the school campus due to electrocution on the date of occurrence.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per ranking in a suit.
2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No. 37 of 2020
3. The case of plaintiff is that while her son Arunkumar was playing cricket, the ball hit by co-student fallen on the upstairs of headmaster room and when he attempted to take the ball, at that time, he happened to touch electric wire meant for tubelight, but there is leakage of electricity, due to which he was electrocuted and died. As he died due to the negligence on the part of school authority as well as on the part of electricity officials, she filed a suit claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from all the defendants.
4. Before the trial court, all the defendants contested the case stating that the alleged occurrence said to have happened after the school hours and school authority failed to cover the electric wire with plastic molding, thereby the negligence on the part of school authority, for which either the State or the Electricity officials are not liable. Hence, they are not entitled to pay compensation. On the side of school authority, it was contended that after the school hours, the deceased and other students played in the school campus and due to the negligence on the part of deceased, who attempted 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No. 37 of 2020 to climb upstairs of headmaster room by climbing through grill gate, thereby he touched the electric wire and accordingly, the occurrence was happened at his own negligence. So, they are not liable to pay any compensation. Both parties have adduced their evidence. Accordingly, the issues were framed. The foremost issue is whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation or the alleged accident was happened due to the negligent act of deceased Arunkumar as alleged by defendants 2 and 3/TANGEDCO. On considering the evidence on record, the trial judge held that on the side of plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined, who are mother and co-student of the deceased. As per the evidence of P.W.1, she came to know that her son met with an accident in the school campus and thereafter, she went there and found her son sustained with electrocution. So, she is not aware of the accident directly.
5. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, it reveals that he is a co- student, studied with the deceased and as per his evidence, on the date of occurrence, they have played cricket in the school ground. Most of the students are hostel students and the same was monitored by their P.T. 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No. 37 of 2020 teacher Paul Jayasekaran, at about 03.30 p.m. while they are playing cricket, the ball was fallen on the upstairs of headmaster room and on the instructions of teacher, he attempted to climb upstairs through the window laptop. At that time, he was happened to touch electric wire relating to the tubelight, which was not properly maintained. So, the accident was happened, due to which, he sustained electrocution and died. Another witness P.W.3 also stated the same as stated by P.W.1 and also co-student of deceased.
6. To deny the evidence of plaintiff, on the side of defendants, Assistant Executive Engineer of electricity board was examined as D.W.1 and as per his evidence, service connection No.803 was allotted to the school and the same was fixed nearby the headmaster room. There is a separate line man for the said school premises. However, he visited the place nearly about one month after the alleged occurrence and informed the headmaster that wire connection was not maintained properly and the said connection was given to the school on 31.01.2008. But, he was not aware whether there was inspection on the side of electricity board 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No. 37 of 2020 officials about the maintenance of the said electric wire connection in the school premises from the year of 2002 till 2009.
7. Another witness examined on the side of defendants is D.W.2, who is Science Teacher of the said school and as per his evidence, on the date of alleged occurrence, on 01.08.2009 Saturday, the said accident was happened. In fact, five periods were conducted upto 1'o clock and thereafter, the students and teachers have left the campus and no class was conducted upto 4.30 p.m. as stated by the plaintiff. Son of plaintiff, deceased Arunkumar and other students played cricket in the school ground upto 05.30 p.m. at that time, ball was fallen on the upstairs of headmaster room and to take the same, he attempted to climb through the grill gate, wherein he touched the electric wire and fell down and sustained injury. So, he attempted to climb knowingfully well that there is no steps to reach upstairs of the headmaster room. Therefore, the alleged occurrence was happened on his own negligence. Hence, the school authority is not liable to pay compensation.
6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No. 37 of 2020
8. Considering both side submissions, the trial court held that as per the evidence of D.W.1, Assistant Executive Engineer of TANGEDCO, electric wires were not properly maintained nor there was electricity inspection was conducted by the TANGEDCO officials. However, the accident was happened due to electrocution. Hence, there is a negligence on the part of electricity board. So also, the school authority is also failed to maintain the electric wire connected in the school without considering the welfare of students. So, there is a negligence on the part of school authority. Accordingly, the trial court held that all the five defendants are liable to pay compensation and by applying the multiplier as well as age, awarded compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- along with court fee, since the plaintiff is a pauper.
9. The foremost objections raised on the side of appellants/defendants is that there is no negligence on the part of electricity officials and after giving electricity connection, the school authority is bound to maintain the electric wires as well as other adapters relating to the consumption of electricity.
7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No. 37 of 2020
10. Considering the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, it is true that the alleged occurrence was happened in the school campus around 05.30 p.m. but at that time, school gates were not closed. So, the plaintiff is able to establish that the alleged occurrence was happened inside the school. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W. 3 reveals that at the time of occurrence, school game was monitored by P.T. teacher. It is also admitted fact that the occurrence happened inside the school campus, while the deceased Arunkumar attempted to take the ball by climbing through window grill gate to reach upstairs of headmaster room, he touched the electric wire and fell down. In fact, the school authority contended that he fell down from the upstairs of headmaster room, thereby he sustained injury, but no proof to that effect. But, as per the post-mortem report, Ex.A2, it reveals that due to electrocution, he died. The evidence of D.W.1 also reveals that while he inspected the school premises, he found that electric wires were not properly maintained. However, he contended that the electric wires are to be maintained by the school authority after giving service connection as such is not acceptable one for the reason that the 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No. 37 of 2020 Electricity Board authority has not furnished any rules and regulations to support their contentions. Admittedly, they gave the electricity connection in the year of 2002, but upto the alleged occurrence happened in the year of 2009, there is no records on the side of Electricity Board to establish that they conducted periodical inspection to check the electric line whether it is proper or not. Therefore, even after one month of alleged occurrence, when D.W.1 visited the occurrence place, he found that the electric wires were not properly maintained and informed the same to the Headmaster, which shows that electric wires are not properly maintained. So, the electricity authority is also bound to maintain the wires and other adapters connected with service connection, but they failed. Hence, they are liable to pay compensation.
11. So also, on considering the evidence of D.W.2, who is Science Teacher of the school also proves that the accident was happened on that day due to electrocution while he touched the electric wires connected with the tubelight on the upstairs of headmaster room. They have also failed to maintain the electricity connection and when they are running the 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No. 37 of 2020 school, they are also bound to take steps, but they failed. Hence, the plaintiff is able to establish that her son was died due to electrocution due to negligence of all the defendants, hence, they are all liable to pay compensation.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as evidence on record, the trial court rightly concludes that the accident was happened due to the negligence on the part of defendants. Accordingly, the compensation was fixed by relying the ratio laid down in the authority by this court reported in 2010 STPL 2422 Mad. in the case of Chariman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai vs. R.Bakkiyavathi, wherein it was held that the structured formula as found under Sec.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is to be followed while calculating compensation. Therefore, the trial court fixed the notional income as Rs.30,000/- per year and expecting the length of life for another 15 years along with consortium for love and affection, thereby totally a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- was awarded. But, on perusal of compensation awarded by the trial court, it needs modification, since at the time of death of deceased, the plaintiff being a 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No. 37 of 2020 widow lady brought up his son at her own source of income and while he studied in 10th std. he died due to electrocution. She was made to stand in the remaining life without any love and affection of her son as well as without any source of income. Furthermore, at the time of death, the deceased was 15 years old boy and if he is not died, he would lead his life for another 40 years. Considering the fact that the date of occurrence of the year 2009, earlier at that time notional income per year was fixed as Rs.30,000/- but this court is inclined to fix the notional income per month as Rs.7000/- and by applying multiplier of 15%, the amount comes around Rs. 12,60,000/-. Since she lost her only son, for love and affection, consortium is fixed at Rs.2,00,000/- and for the expenses of last rites, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is fixed. In total, a sum of Rs.14,85,000/- is awarded as compensation along with interest at the rate of Rs.6% from the date of filing the petition till realisation. As the widow lady approached the court for more than 11 years and all these years, she is not able to realise the fruits of the decree. Therefore, the defendants are directed to deposit the award amount as stated supra within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No. 37 of 2020 prosecute the Execution Petition and if any such petition is filed, the Executing Court is directed to dispose the execution proceedings within a period of three months from the date of filing the petition. Accordingly, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. Thus, suit is decreed. Time to deposit the amount awarded is granted for the period of eight weeks (2 months) from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
rpp
To
Mahila Court, Perambalur.
12/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No. 37 of 2020
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
A.S.No. 37 of 2020
19.11.2024
13/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis