Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The third defendant and the plaintiffs have filed these appeals.

2. The Kerala State Electricity Board, its Chairman and the third defendant were sued for damages on account of the electrocution of Raveendran Nair, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant. The court below granted a decree as against the third defendant. He is, therefore, in appeal. The plaintiffs are in appeal against the refusal of decree as against the KSE Board.

3. The learned counsel for the third defendant argued that applying the doctrine of strict liability as enunciated in the precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.P.Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari [(2002) 2 SCC 162] and H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath [(2004) 5 SCC 793], the liability was entirely on the KSE Board to ensure that the lines are maintained with due vertical clearances and horizontal clearances as provided by the prescriptions contained in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for short, the “Act” and the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, for short, the “Rules”. It was accordingly argued that the material evidence on record, including Ext.X1 report by the Electrical Inspector, pointedly show that the KSE Board and the officers under it had failed to discharge their statutory obligations and hence, they are liable to satisfy the decree. The learned counsel also argued that the quantum of damages fixed is excessive.

4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, apart from supporting the decree as it stands, including as regards the quantum of damages, their learned counsel argued that notwithstanding the liability of the third defendant, the court below ought to have passed a joint and several decree as against the KSE Board as well. It was argued that the liability based on the doctrine of strict liability, as noted above, does not get wiped out and there was no ground to exonerate the KSE Board and its officials from liability.

5. KSE Board's learned counsel argued that Ext.X1 report of the Electrical Inspector, who is a statutory authority under the Act and the Rules, clearly shows that the situation was on account of the third defendant raising the height of his compound wall and then providing grills on top of it, the painting of which was being done by Raveendran Nair at the point of time of the incident that resulted in his electrocution. The enquiry by the Electrical Inspector by making local inspection and interacting with the relevant persons in the locality revealed that the accident was on account of the third defendant not having taken precautionary measures, including by intimating the KSE Board to off the lines while such work was being carried out. The learned counsel thus argued that the court below was justified in relying on Rule 82 of the Rules which enjoined that the existing compound wall could not have been raised without prior intimation to the Board authorities as enjoined by that rule. KSE Board, therefore, pleaded that the appeal as against it be dismissed.

6. D.W.1 is the Assistant Engineer of the KSE Board. He gave evidence that the third defendant had not given any intimation or obtained permission in connection with the erection of the ornamental fittings on top of his compound wall and that the electricity line was in place through the alignment for the previous more than thirty years. His cross examination only tends to show that he had to warn the people in third defendant's home that the work should not be carried out without further permission; yet no further request was made even before proceeding with the work. There is no contra evidence. Neither the third defendant nor any one on his behalf has tendered any evidence.

7. Rule 82(1) of the Rules provides, inter alia, that if at any time subsequent to the erection of an overhead line (whether covered with insulating material or bare), any person proposes to erect a new building or structure or to carry out any other type of work, whe