The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Electricity Department for negligence under the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and the principles of tort of negligence.

K. Sampath, J .

1. The defendants in O.S.No. 150 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore are the appellants in this appeal. The respondents herein filed the suit as indigent persons for recovery of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation for the loss caused to them on account of the death of one Kuppuswamy-husband of the first respondent and father of the other respondents.

2. Their case was as follows: Kuppuswamy was engaged in the manufacture of pots and selling the same. He used to earn Rs.250 to Rs.300 per week. On 13.12.1986, at about 4.30 a.m., Kuppuswamy got electrocuted in front of his house at Manaveli on Vandipalayam road. The electrocution was because of the sagging of the high tension electric wire in front of his house. When he came out of the house, he came into contact with the high tension wire which caused his instantaneous death. The sagging of the wire was purely due to the negligence of the Electricity Department. The Department had not taken necessary precaution to prevent the dangers of line wires getting sagged or snapped resulting in serious accidents. They should have made provision of automatic disconnection of supply of energy or shielding the same by insulating material. The said death was caused due to the negligence of the defendants/appellants. If the Department had been diligent and had been attending to its duties properly, the accident would not have occurred and the first respondent would not have lost her husband. At the time of his death, the deceased was 38 years old and he was hale and healthy. The first respondent had become a widow at her very early age. She had to maintain her minor children and educate them. Kuppuswamy would have lived for more then 30 years and supported the family by earning large income. Because of his premature death, due to the utter negligence and failure on the part of the Department, the respondents have been put to great hardship and loss. The respondents estimated the damages at Rs.1,00,000 though they would be entitled to more.

3. The second defendant filed a written statement resisting the suit interalia contending as follows : The L.T. Lines along the road side of Manaveli Village being fed by Manaveli SS II for domestic and street lights. While so, in the morning on 13.12.1986, the copper wire No.8 was found missing between poles with manufacturing No. 377, 367 RSJ pole and 385. The solid copper wire No.8 conductor was found to have been cut by culprits during night hours, with the result, the conductor fell down between poles manufacturing No. 385 and 47 in the night hours on 12.12.1986. The deceased might have come into contact with the said conductor and got electrocuted due to contributory negligence. The accident was not due to callousness and indifference on the part of the Department. Soon after the receipt of the information from one Annamalai of Manaveli about the death of Kuppuswamy, the subordinate official of the Department rushed to the spot and appraised the Station House Officer, Cuddalore, O.T. Police Station in a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No. 632/86. All the wires in the said street at Manaveli were only low tension lines and not high tension wires. It was wrong to say that electrocution was because of the sagging of the high tension electric wires on the low level in front of the house of the deceased. The alleged sagging was not due to the negligence of the Department. It was because of the cutting of the conductor at Pole 383 by some miscreant thief. The Department had provided necessary precautionary measures for avoiding accidents due to snapping of wire due to unforeseen circumstances and the maintenance was also proper. The claim, in any event, was highly exaggerated. Even before the defendants could evaluate the allegations made on behalf of the respondents, the respondents had rushed to the Court. The suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. Onthe above pleadings, the Trial Court framed