Proper measures could have been taken by officials of Electricity Board.

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 documentary evidence, the trial court has held that the claims of the respondents / plaintiffs have been proved and accordingly decreed the suit and directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the respondents herein. Aggrieved by which, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants / defendants.

4. According to P.W.1, the deceased Shanmugam was the bread winner of his family and he was earning an average of Rs.50/-per day as an agricultural coolie and also by milk vending business. According to her, she had sent a written representation to the Tahsildar, the original of Ex.A.5, the postal acknowledgment has been marked as Ex.A.6 and also a representation to the District Collector, the copy of same has been marked as Ex.A.7.

5. She has further stated that she had received Ex.A.8, reply from the Office of the Superintending Engineer, TNEB, Thiruvannamalai Division and under Ex.A.9, required particulars were also furnished by the respondents. Subsequently, it was informed that the appellants would pay only Rs.10,000/-as compensation under Ex.A.19. After receiving the aforesaid amount, she wrote another letter to the appellants office, seeking adequate compensation, but the request was not complied with, hence, she filed the suit, seeking compensation of Rs.90,000/- from the appellants.

6. The points for consideration arose in this appeal are as follows :

1) Whether V.Shanmugam, husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 and 3 died due to the negligence of the appellants?

2) Whether the compensation awarded by the trial court for the death of the said Shanmugam is exorbitant?

7. Mr.N.Muthuswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the electrocution and the death of the husband of the first respondent was not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the appellants herein. According to him, as there was heavy rain and wind, the overhead electric live wires were severed and hanging, but the same was not due to the negligence of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and as such the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents.

8. In the written statement, the appellants herein have admitted that there was a heavy rain and wind, which started in mid night on 26.09.1989 and continued till the next day morning. As there was sudden rain and speedy wind, without any prior symptom, the department could not take steps to switch off the current. The appellants further stated in the written statement that the service connection in S.C.No.33 was not under use and the concerned consumer had not intimated to disconnect the electric line, otherwise, the appellants could have taken immediate steps to disconnect the line and restore its original position.

9. Per contra, Mr.R