The doctrine of strict liability was upheld, and just and reasonable compensation was awarded based on the nature and extent of the injuries and their impact on the victim's future prospects.

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal.

2. This appeal is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging a decree for compensation granted to a minor, then four or five years old, for injuries that he suffered as a result of coming into contact with electrical energy.

3. On 25.09.1999, the victim went along with his friends to a nearby rubber estate to collect fire wood. His head touched a live high voltage electric line which was drooping and sagging. This led to serious electric burns on his scalp, left ear and both feet. Fortunately, he survived, but with very severe injuries and the disfigured head, face and both feet.

4. The defence set up by the Board was that while it is true that the plaintiff had sustained injuries due to electric shock, the incident occurred only because of heavy rain and wind and a branch of a rubber tree had broken and fallen over a 11 KV line and that was how the line happened to sag and drew. The precedents governing the field advance the applicability of the doctrine of strict liability -see for support, W.B.SEB v. Sachin Banerjee[(1999) 9 SCC 21], M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari [(2002) 2 SCC 162] and Varghese and another v. K.S.E.B[ILR 2013(2) Ker.99], also following Quebec Rly., Light, Heat and Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry [1920 AC 662].For that reason, the appeal of the Board on the question of negligence has to fail.

5. Adverting to the findings of the court below under issue No.3, it can be seen that just and reasonable compensation has been fixed taking into account different aspects, including the fact that the victim was an inpatient in a hospital from 12.10.1999 for many days and the discharge certificate and other certificates including certificates, for plastic surgery and other expenses clearly show that he was entitled to the amount granted. As can be seen from the impugned judgment, there is no dispute that the child sustained grievous burns on the scalp, left ear lobe and both feet. From the date of incident, he was an impatient for 18 days and thereafter, was treated as an outpatient for fairly a long period. Ext.A6 discharge card evidences that the child had high voltage electric burns resulting in scalp defect of 3 cms on bone depth, left ear cartilage loss of / cm and loss of distal phalanx of little toe of left foot. The court below took note of the expenses and the estimated expenses for plastic surgery for reconstruction. The learned Tribunal had also seen the child who was present in court and has recorded his look as pitiable. The Assistant Executive engineer, who was then being examined as D.W.1, also looked at the child and admitted that the injuries were serious. The court below also had Ext.A9 photographs of the child. From the nature of injuries, the court below concluded that the child had suffered great pain and agony for long days. Resultant disablement and disfiguration, according to the court below, appear to be permanent, affecting the child's future prospects, earning capacity and marriage prospects. Taking all relevant considerations, the court below held that the child is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- as fair and reasonable compensation. We do not find any infirmity in the approach adopted by the court below, and the compensation fixed is just and reasonable.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.