Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The mother of the petitioner was aged 47 years. She was employed as a construction worker earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day. She was survived by three sons including the petitioner. The death of his mother caused immense pain to the petitioner, besides perennial loss to the family. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ Petition praying for an order to pay compensation estimated at Rs.10,00,000/-.

THE DEFENCE:

6. The fourth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, disputed the allegations regarding negligence. According to the fourth respondent, the Board has been maintaining the electric line very regularly. The fourth respondent contended that a political party has erected a flex board in the bus stand area and due to heavy wind, the said advertisement board/flex board suddenly fell on the electricity board lines passing through the said street. Accordingly, the electrical wires snapped and the mother of the petitioner died due to electrocution. The fourth respondent further contended that the negligence cannot be attributed to them and the incident has happened, only because of erection of flex board by a political party.

10. The fourth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, contended that the incident has happened only on account of erection of a flex board by a political party. The said flex board fell on the electric lines passing through the bus stand area and accordingly, the mother of the petitioner was electrocuted.

11. The fourth respondent very clearly admitted the erection of a flex board near the electric line. There is nothing in the counter-affidavit to indicate as to when the flex board was erected. The first respondent has not filed any counter in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The Electricity Board has got a duty to see that no kind of erections are made near the supply line. The Board has got Field Officers responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of the electric line. The Electricity Board has employed Supervisors and Line Helpers only to see that the electric lines are kept in proper condition. The incident in question has happened in a Town. The fourth respondent has got a divisional circle office at Thuvarankuruchi. Therefore, they cannot plead ignorance that they were not aware of the erection of flex board near the line.

12. The Board cannot shirk their responsibility by accusing the political party for having erected the flex board near the electric line. The provisions of the Electricity Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder contains detailed provisions about the erection of structures and the situation of dangerous materials near the electric line. The Electricity Board is not powerless in such situations. In case a political party or any other public erects flex board and other materials near the electric line, it is the duty of the Board to see that such structures are removed at the earliest point of time. The line should be erected in such a way that it will not snap on account of any external objects touch the line.

16. The negligence of the Electricity Board is writ large. Though they have admitted that a political party has erected a flex board very near to the line, they have not taken any action to remove the flex board. Therefore, the Electricity Board cannot avoid the liability. The mother of the petitioner died only on account of electrocution. It is not the responsibility of the petitioner to prove as to how the electric line was snapped. The petitioner or his mother had no control over the electrical system as well as the transmission line. Therefore, in such circumstances, onus is heavy on the Electricity Board to demonstrate that they were not responsible for the incident.