The main legal point established is the liability of the Electricity Board for negligence in maintaining electric lines, leading to an electrocution death, and the determination of compensation based on the deceased's income and dependency.

The defendants 1 to 3 in the suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.740 of 2002 and D5 filed the appeal in A.S.No.191 of 2009 as against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2002 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, in O.S.No.233 of 1999.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two appeals would run thus:

(a) The original plaintiffs three in number happened to be the mother, widow and unmarried sister respectively, of the deceased Marappan, who died electrocution death on 16.05.1994. The Electricity Board and its officials filed the written statement resisting the suit. The land owner in which the death occurred also filed separate written statement resisting the suit.

(b) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues.

(c) During trial, the second plaintiff-Gomathi examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the defendants, one Arumugam was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 was marked.

(d) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with 9% interest per annum, in favour of the plaintiffs, payable by the defendants jointly and severally.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Electricity Board and its officials preferred A.S.No.740 of 2002 on various grounds. D5, son of deceased D4 (the land owner) filed separate appeal in A.S.No.191 of 2009 impugning and challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

5. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts as stood exposited from the averments in the plaint would run thus:

The deceased Marappan at his age of 40 years, on 16.05.1994 proceeded on foot across the coconut thope of D5, and came in contact with a live fallen wire on the ground and owing to that he sustained electrocution death. The police registered the FIR on the next day consequent upon the complaint lodged by the V.A.O. concerned. According to the plaintiffs, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month at the relevant time of his death and the plaintiffs happened to be his deponents. On the death of the only bread winner of the family, the plaintiffs were left high and dry, in addition to they being helpless. Hence they filed the suit seeking compensation as against the defendants.

6. Per contra, the Electricity Board and its officials would try to disown their liability on the ground that the land owner ought to have been careful enough in maintaining the coconut trees properly and that the electric wire got snapped because of the falling of a dry coconut leaf which was left uncut or pruned by the land owner.

7. The land owner would contend that the accident was not due to his negligence, but it was because of the negligence of the Electricity officials in not maintaining the electric line properly.

8. The points for consideration are as under:

(1) Whether the trial Court was justified in fixing the liability on the Electricity Board and its officials as well as the land owner, for the electrocution death of the deceased Marappan?

(2) Whether the trial Court was justified in applying the multiplier 20, even though the finding of the trial Court was to the effect that the deceased died at the age of 45?

(3) Whether the interest awarded at the rate of 9% per annum was just and proper?

(4) Whether the trial Court was justified in not awarding compensation under various other usual sub heads?

(5) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree of the trial Court?

9. All these points are taken together for discussion as they are inter-linked and interwoven with one another.

10. The contention on the side of the Electricity Board that the land owner ought to have mai