SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Mad) 3758

S.TAMILVANAN
Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Madras & Another – Appellant
Versus
Lalitha & Others – Respondent


For the Appellants:N. Muthuswami, Advocate. For the Respondents:
R. Vijayakumar, T.R. Rajaraman, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document is a judgment from a High Court case, not a Supreme Court case. It discusses issues related to negligence under Tort Law, specifically concerning the failure of the Electricity Board to take proper safety measures, leading to the electrocution and death of an individual. The court confirmed the compensation awarded by the lower court and dismissed the appeal of the appellants, emphasizing the negligence of the Electricity Board and the applicability of principles such as res ipsa loquitur.

There is no reference or mention of a Supreme Court judgment within this document.


Judgment :-

This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 29.07.1994 made in O.S.No.81 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arni.

2. The respondents / defendants are the Legal Representatives of one V.Shanmugam, who died on 27.09.1989 at about 10 a.m, while he set his feet on a severed live electric wire that had fallen on the ground in an agricultural field, belonging to one Munuswamy Naidu in S.U.Vanam, Arni Taluk and died of electrocution instantaneously. After the death of Shanmugam, it was reported to the police, FIR was registered and postmortem was also conducted. The Tahsildar, Arni issued Death Certificate, Ex.A.2 and also Legal Heirship Certificate, Ex.A.3. It is not in dispute that the first respondent is the wife and the respondents 2 and 3 are the minor children and as such they are the Legal Heirs of the deceased.

3. Before the trial court, on the side of the respondents, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1, apart from another witness, P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A29 were also marked. On the side of the appellants / defendants, D.W.1 was examined and no document was marked on the side of the appellant herein. Considering the oral and do
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top