IMPORTANT POINTS:
The purpose of awarding damages is to compensate the loss suffered by the victim or their family though the loss suffered cannot be compensated in terms of money. When the death is of a house wife who was managing the whole affairs inside the family, will definitely shatter the entire family. The mental agony and hardship being suffered by the family will be beyond imagination. The deceased was aged only 47 years at the time of her death. The court below considered the age of the deceased and also the fact that she was a house wife, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,62,000/-. The compensation awarded cannot be said to be high and excessive.

1. Kerala State Electricity Board (for short the "Board"), the first defendant in O.S. No. 37/2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Koyilandy, has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2009 directing to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. A lady by name Mallika expired on 25.3.2006 due to electrocution. Respondents 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) her legal heirs have filed the suit for realization of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation, from all the defendants.

2. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to the cases of the parties.

3. Smt. Mallika was the wife of the fourth plaintiff. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the children born to them in the wedlock. While Smt. Mallika was residing along with her family, on 25.3.2006 she died due to electrocution, when she attempted to connect the cable wire to the socket of the Television Set installed in her residence. Smt. Mallika was aged 47 years at the time of her death. She was working as a housemaid and was earning an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month. The death occurred on account of sheer negligence of the defendants. Due to the untoward incident plaintiffs 1 to 3 had lost their loving mother and the 4th plaintiff had lost his beloved wife. As the legal heirs of the deceased, they have claimed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation from the defendants.

4. The first defendant is the Electricity Board and the second and third defendants are cable operators.

5. The Board resisted the claim inter alia contending that there was no negligence on the part of the Board and in fact the occupants of the residence have not sought for the permission of the Board for installing cable connection to their television. The death was due to the carelessness of the deceased and the Board is not responsible for her death. The unauthorized and illegal drawing of cable wire by the cable operators through electric posts to provide connection to the T.V. installed in the residence of the deceased caused her death and hence, the Board is not liable to pay any amount as compensation.

6. The second defendant contended that the fourth plaintiff was a subscriber of the cable connection run by name 'Telnet cable vision'. The cable is connected to the television set through a socket provided at the receiving end. The allegation that Smt. Mallika died due to electric shock while connecting cable wire to the television is not correct. The cable wire was drawn through the extreme side of the road along wooden poles erected at different places and electric posts owned by the Board were not used for drawing the cable wire. The death was not due to the negligence of the second defendant.

7. The third defendant, M/s .Zener cable vision contended that they have no subscribers at that location and the family of the plaintiffs was the subscriber of Telnet cable vision run by the second defendant. This defendant was not responsible for the mishap. The third defendant had supplied optical signals to the Telnet Cable Vision via optical fibre cable and optical fibre cable will not contain any electric supply or shock. The death of Smt. Mallika was due to the negligence of the Board. The quantum of income stated was also disputed.

8. Before the court below PW-s 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. On the side of the defendants, DWs1 and 2 were examined and Ext.B1 to B3 were marked. Exts.C1 and X1 were also marked. According to the court below, the Board was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. The said verdict is under challenge.

9. Heard Adv. Sri. Sudheer Ganesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant/Board, Adv. Sri. Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4 and 7 to 9 and Adv. E. Narayanan for the respondents 5 and 6.

10. The death of Smt. Mallika, wife of the fourth plaintiff and the mother of the other plaintiffs was on 25.3.2006. Ext.A1 post mortem certifi