Electricity suppliers are strictly liable for injuries caused by their infrastructure, regardless of negligence, and must compensate victims for losses incurred.

JUDGEMENT :

(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

This appeal suit is preferred by the Tamil Nadu General and Distribution Corporation Limited at Cuddalore challenging the judgement and decree dated 16.12.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Cuddalore in O.S.No.217 of 2018 granting a compensation of Rs.8,80,000/- in a case of electrocution of one Siva of Vandipalayam in Cuddalore District.

2. The respondents are the plaintiffs and the appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.217 of 2018. The 1st respondent/1st plaintiff is the wife, respondents 2 to 4/plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the minor son and daughters of the deceased and the 5th respondent/5th plaintiff is the mother of the deceased Siva.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal suit will hereinafter be referred to as per their array before the trial court.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows

(i) On July 28, 2017, at approximately 06.00 p.m., the deceased Siva was riding his motorcycle bearing Regn. No. TN-31-BE-2599 from East to West along with a pillion rider named Dheivalakshmi at a moderate speed. During that time, heavy wind and rain damaged an electric post, causing a live wire to snap off and fall onto the main road. The deceased Siva who was riding a motorcycle on M.Pudur Main Road, opposite Sri Vinayaga Tyre Works, when came into contact with a live wire that was lying across the road, was electrocuted and fell unconscious on the spot. He was immediately rushed to Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital in Puducherry, where the doctor examined him and declared him “brought dead”. Thereafter, his body was shifted to the Government Head Quarters Hospital in Cuddalore for post- mortem before being shifted back to his home for the funeral rites. The pillion rider, Dheivalakshmi, and another person named Sridhar were also hurt as a result of the electric shock. A complaint was filed with Thirupapuliyur Police Station, and an FIR was recorded under Crime No. 457 of 2017.

(ii) The officials at TANGEDCO were completely negligent, leading to the tragedy. Keeping public safety in mind, the officials in charge should have inspected the areas where electrical posts and lines were built on a regular basis, repaired any problems that arose, and so properly maintained the posts and electric lines/wires. However, they miserably failed in carrying out their duties and responsibilities, resulting in the death of the deceased Siva. The snapping off an electric wire is a clear evidence of faulty maintenance of electrical wire. As a result of their negligence, the defendants must bear responsibility for Siva's death.

(iii) The deceased Siva was a Mason who earned Rs.750/- per day. He was approximately 36 years old at the time of electrocution. The plaintiffs are, wife, children and mother of the deceased Siva. They are the lawful heirs and dependants of the deceased Siva, who passed away and the said Siva was the family's sole breadwinner. The plaintiffs are deeply saddened by the irreversible death of the deceased, Siva whose sudden demise left them in a permanent lurch and deprived them of all of his income. They have been struggling greatly, with the first plaintiff, who was the deceased's wife, suffering from a loss of consortium and the other plaintiffs from the loss of love and affection.

(iv) They have spent a huge amount on his death, ambulance charges and funeral expenses. The plaintiffs have issued a legal notice dated 31.10.2018 to the defendants seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of Siva, but they have not paid any compensation the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs estimated the compensation payable at Rs.12,00,000/- for the loss of estate, loss of income and future prospects, loss of love and affection to the plaintiffs, ambulance expenses, transport charge, funeral expenses and shock and agony.

(v) The electrocution happened within the jurisdiction of the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant is the District Head of the TANGEDCO. Hence,