The court found the Electricity Board negligent and awarded compensation based on the deceased's income and contribution to the family, and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the decree amount.

Even after eighteen years of the death of the breadwinner of their family by electrocution, the legal representatives of the deceased are still in Court to justify the compensation decree passed by the trial Court way back in the year 1997.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.1997 in O.S.No.4213/1996 on the file of the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. The parties to the appeal would be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

4. The plaint was originally filed before the High Court, in its original civil jurisdiction in C.S.No.920/1993. The suit was subsequently transferred to the City Civil Court and it was renumbered as O.S.No.4213/1996.

Background Facts :

5. In the plaint in O.S.No.4213/1996, plaintiffs contended inter-alia thus :-

(a) The first plaintiff is the wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Rajendran. The deceased was a hale and healthy person. He was doing business in textiles. Plaintiffs were residing along with the said Rajendran at Salavanpet, Vellore. The deceased Rajendran used to purchase readymade garments and other fabrics from whole sale shops at Madras, carry them to Vellore and sell to customers at various places in and around Vellore. The deceased Rajendran was contributing a sum of Rs.2,200/- to the family every month. The second plaintiff was studying in UKG and the third plaintiff was studying in LKG at Vellore during the untimely death of Rajendran.

b) Deceased Rajendran went to Madras on 12.08.1991 and he purchased two head loads of variety of garments and fabrics and was proceeding to board bus bound to Vellore near LIC bus stop at Mount Road, Madras. While proceeding so to the bus stop at about 20.15 hours, he was electrocuted and he died instantaneously. Electrocution was on account of the negligence of the Electricity Board.

c) The third defendant had carried out repair work during the day time on 12.08.1991 on the electric cable running underground by digging a ditch in front of the pavement of L.I.C. Building at Mount Road. The third defendant had left the electric cable underneath uncovered, rather not concealed properly and caused leakage of electric current. Knowing well that it is a busy area and people will walk on the platform along the road side, the third defendant failed to provide safety to the public and did not provide any fence or guard around the repair site. Therefore, it was only on account of the negligent act of the third defendant, the incident had happened and hence the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiffs.

d) The incident was reported to the Anna Salai Police and a case in Cr.No.1900/91 was registered.

e) The deceased Rajendran was only thirty years at the time of his death. He was the sole breadwinner of the family. The first plaintiff is quite young and she had lost her life partner. She also lost her enjoyment of life and had to live the life of widow for the rest of her life. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 have lost their dutiful father at their early childhood and they have to remain without any care, protection and financial help from their father for the rest of their life. Due to the death of Rajendran, the plaintiffs were constrained to shift their residence to Madras. The education of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were also hampered during the academic year 1991-1992. The first defendant was constrained to work as maid servant for the purpose of feeding the children. Plaintiffs quantified the loss on account of the death of Rajendran at Rs.5,50,000/-and accordingly, they prayed for a decree directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest and cost.

6. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement.

7. In the written statement, the first defendant denied the allegation of negligence on the part of the Electricity Board in the incident.

8. The third defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations and av