Suppliers of electricity are strictly liable for harm caused by their operations, regardless of negligence, and notional income can be reasonably assessed for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of trial Court directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10,90,000/- along with interest at 6% as compensation to the plaintiffs, who are the parents of the deceased, these appeals have been filed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

3. A.S.No.33 of 2024 is filed by the second defendant in the suit and A.S.No.40 of 2023 is filed by the Defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. Since both appeals arise out of the same judgment, both the appeals are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Brief facts leading to filing of case is as follows:

Plaintiffs' younger son Mohanraj, who was aged about 28 years, died due to leakage of electricity in high power tower post at Santhaipettai, Elampillai in the morning of 23.08.2015 and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.498 of 2015 on 24.08.2015 on the complaint lodged by the parents of the deceased. The investigation also establishes the fact that the death was due to electrocution. It is the case of the plaintiffs that high power tower was under the control of Defendants 1 to 4 and as the tower had not been maintained, the leakage had happened and therefore, defendants 1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs.

5. The fifth defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 1 to 4 and 6. It is their contention that alleged police complaint dated 24.08.2015 would establish the fact that cause of death of Mohanraj was suspicious. It is the case of the defendants that the death was not due to electrical short circuit as stated by the plaintiffs rather the death has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased Mohanraj and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

i) Whether the death of Mohanraj occurred due to the negligence on the part of the defendants?

ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation from the defendants?

iii) To what other relief?

7. In the trial, on the side of the plaintiffs two witnesses were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked and on the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DWs 1 and 2 but no documents were marked.

8. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suit in part and directed the defendants to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,90,000/- as compensation to the plaintiffs along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Challenging the said judgment, these two appeals have been filed.

9. It is the contention of the appellants in A.S.No.40 of 2023 that trial Court has proceeded as if the electric power post is being maintained by TANGEDCO however the posts are maintained only by the local authorities. Therefore, fixing the liability on TANGEDCO to pay the compensation is not proper. It is their further contention that trial Court fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month without any evidence. According to the appellants, the death was due to electrocution has not been established and in the post-mortem report, initially there is no mention that the deceased died due to electrocution, but only later it is stated by the doctor that the deceased appeared to have been died due to 'electrocution'. That apart, FIR would indicate that death was due to suspicious circumstances. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that death was due to electrocution is not sustainable.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the death was due to electrocution has been clearly established not only through the evidence of the medical officer but also it is admitted by the third respondent in their reply. The learned counsel for plaintiffs further submitted that trial Court has also adopted only notional income to arrive at the compensation which does not require any interference.