The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of damages based on welfare legislations and case laws, and the consideration of factors such as age, income, future prospects, number of dependants, and extent of dependency.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2014 in O.S.No.53 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Harur.)

1. The appellants before this Court are the defendants in O.S.No.53 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Harur, being aggrieved by the decree passed against them in the suit for damages filed by the legal heirs of Kumaran, who died due to fall of electrical pole on him, this first appeal is filed.

2. The suit claiming damages of Rs.10,00,000/- was filed on the premise that on 17/12/2010 at about 7.00 pm, when the deceased Kumaran resident of Pananthoppu Village, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District, was standing near the house of one Madesh and talking to him, the electrical pole ill-maintained by the defendants, broke and fell on Kumaran. He was severely injured beside electrocuted. He died on his way to hospital. Post mortem report says that he died due to electrical shock and vital organ injuries.

3. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the wife, two minor children and the mother of the deceased respectively. The suit under Order XXXIII as “informa pauperis” filed by them after causing notice alleging that the fall of electrical pole was due to poor maintenance and negligence on the part of the defendants. For the loss of their Kartha Kumaran, defendants 1 to 4 are liable to compensate his dependants/legal heirs, who are the plaintiffs in the suit.

4. Defendants 1 to 4 are the officials of TamilNadu Electricity Board, defendants in their written statements denying the liability, contented that, the incident occurred due to the voluntary act of the deceased. On 17/12/2010, there was power failure in the house of the deceased. The deceased under inebriated mood opened the transformer box, climbed the electrical pole and fell down. In this regard complaint to the Morrapur Police Station was lodged by the Electricity Board Agent Sekar against Kumaran for tampering the transformer and for causing damage to the electricity board property worth Rs.10,000/-. The death of said Kumaran was not due to the negligence or poor maintenance of the electrical pole by the defendants. Contrary to the truth, based on the false complaint given by Murugan the brother of the deceased, The Morrapur Police has registered case in Cr.No.324/2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and the case under investigation.

5. The trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit claim amount ?

2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of damages ?

3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of damages for the negligence caused by the defendants ?

4) To what relief ?

6. For the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff deposed as PW-1 and in support of her case, PW-2 to PW-4 were examined. Ex.A1 to Ex.A-10 were marked in support of the suit claim. For the defendants, three witnesses and four exhibits Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4 relied.

7. The trial Court held that the damaged electrical pole fell on the deceased due to poor maintenance and negligence of the defendants. Therefore, held the defendants liable to pay the suit claim of Rs.10lakhs with 6% interest.

8. The appellants assail the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the Court below failed to properly appreciate the evidence. The villagers damaged the pole and made out a false case as if the pole fell on Kumaran and caused his death. Ex.B2, the letter of Madeshwaran disproves the case of the claimants that the pole fell on the deceased when he was talking with Madeshwaran. In Ex.B-2, Madeshwaran has categorically stated that he has no knowledge about the incident and he was not present along with the deceased at the time of incident.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the trial Court, without proper appreciation of evidence, erroneously held the n