Compensation in electrocution cases must consider income assessment, dependency claims, and legal precedents, with the Court able to enhance awards even after decrees are satisfied.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The plaintiffs, not satisfied with the compensation awarded in the Original Suit, are the appellants.

2. PLEADINGS:

(a). Plaint in brief:-

The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of one Saravanan, the first plaintiff being the wife and second plaintiff being the son and third and fourth plaintiffs, being the parents. The said Saravanan, was engaged as a centring worker, earning Rs.700/- per day and he was also rearing cattle and earning additional income. On 13.11.2020, during the Nivar cyclone, Saravanan left the house at 5.00 pm, to go to the temple to light the lamp for his family deity and while he was proceeding, he entered upon one Nataraj's land, where he came into contact with a live wire and got electrocuted and died on the spot. The whereabouts of the said Saravanan came to be known only on the next day. The Electricity Board was informed about the incident and power supply was also cut off immediately. The first plaintiff, wife of deceased lodged a complaint with Kilpennathur Police Station and a case was registered in Cr.No.2519 of 2020. The Saravanan died only due to the negligence of the defendants. He was aged about 45 years, earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. The plaintiffs were dependents of the said Saravanan. Despite pre-suit notice dated 26.12.2020, the defendants had only chosen to issue a reply with false and untenable claims. The plaintiffs claim compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- payable by the defendants 1 to 4, jointly and severally, with costs of the suit.

(b).Written Statement filed by the first defendant and adopted by the defendants 2 to 4, briefly:-

In view of the Nivar cyclone, the Electricity Board officials were vigilant and were attending calls round the clock. There were no negligence or carelessness on their part. The electric live wire snatching and falling on land was only because of heavy storm, rain and wind and not because of any negligence of the Officials. The defendants denied the self-serving claims of the plaintiffs that deceased Saravanan was earning not less than Rs.30,000/- per month. The first defendant has been regularly checking and maintaining all electrical appliances in regular intervals of time by conducting monthly maintenance work and the alleged incident resulting in the demise of Saravanan was only due to natural calamity. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any compensation from the defendants.

(c) ISSUES:

The Trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following three issues:-

1. Whether the death of the first plaintiff husband's Saravanan was caused due to the negligence of the defendants in not properly maintaining the electric wires, over which, they are the sole custodians?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the compensate as prayed for?

3. To what relief if any the plaintiffs are entitled to?

(d). TRIAL:

At trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and two independent witnesses, Tr.Ramu @ Ramachandran and Tr.Natarajan were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On the side of the defendants, one Jayaraman, officials of the Electricity Board was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the defendants.

(e) Decision of the Trial Court:

The Trial Court answered the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,45,000/- payable together with interest at 7.5% per annum together with Court fee of Rs.28,350/-.

3. Dissatisfied with the award of compensation, the plaintiffs are on Appeal, in fact, the Appeal was filed along with an application seeking permission to permit the petitioners to prefer the App