In negligence claims, plaintiffs must provide sufficient evidence that the defendant's actions caused the injury; mere allegations are inadequate for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2020 made in O.S.No.86 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The aggrieved defendant in O.S.No.86 of 2018 is the appellant.Suit is for compensation from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) for the death of Mrs.Amirtham, aged about 57 years, due to electrocution. Suit against the Superintendent Engineer, TNEB Tiruvannamalai, was filed by five plaintiffs, who are husband, widowed daughter-in-law, two sons and one grand-son, of the deceased Amirtham.

3. Brief facts leading to the appeal:

On 27.08.2017, the body of Amirtham, W/o Dhanasekaran, was found dead in the field of Krishnamoorthy Chettiar, Kollaikottai Village, Tiruvannamalai District. It was presumed that she died due to electrocution. However, the family members of Amirtham buried her without reporting the incident to the Police. After one month on 28.09.2017, complaint was given to Kadaladi Police Station and case in Crime No.299 of 2017 came to be registered. The body of Amirtham was exhumed and subjected to autopsy. Suit for recovery of damages of Rs.10 lakhs filed alleging that Amirtham, while she stepped on a live wire lying on the field of Krishnamoorthy, died due to electrocution.

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations. The allegation of electrocution due to snapping of wire and passing of electrical current through it denied. It was affirmed by the defendant that the wire were well maintained and no fault on the Department. The cause for the death of Amirtham is not proved. The Police complaint given belatedly is an afterthought to make fortune out of a misfortune.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial court has framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of recovery of Rs.10,50,000/- as compensation as prayed for ?

(2) To what other relief ?

6. On the side of the plaintiffs, the first and second plaintiffs were examined as PW-1 and PW-2. One Kamalakannan examined as PW-3. 7 documents were marked as plaintiffs side exhibits. On behalf of the defendant, Assistant Engineer, TNEB, was examined as DW-1. The Job allocation register marked as Ex.B-1.

7. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence, allowed the suit by awarding compensation of Rs.9,36,400/- with 7.5% p.a interest which to be distributed in the ratio fixed in the decree.

8. Grounds of challenge:-

The judgement and decree dated 07.02.2020 is challenged by the sole defendant on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Amirtham died due to electrocution and it was due to the negligence of TNEB. Based on a belated FIR Ex.A-1, dated 28.09.2017 reporting the death of Amirtham on 26.08.2017 due to electrocution, the body of Amirtham was exhumed and subjected to post mortem. The post mortem report Ex.A-2 does not establish that Amirtham died due to electrocution. Contrarily, the defendant had produced the duty allocation register Ex.B-1 to prove that on 28.09.2017 there was no complaint about snapping of electrical wire in that area. The Trial Court miserable failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs had n