Compensation for electrocution requires inclusion of future prospects in economic loss calculation, with a 40% increase for the deceased under 40, reflecting negligence in maintenance by electricity providers.

COMMON JUDGMENT

The First Appeal in A.S.No.482 of 2022 has been filed by the Defendants/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Full Additional Charge), Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.48 of 2017 dated 02.08.2019.

2. The First Appeal in A.S.No.444 of 2024 has been filed by the Plaintiffs to modify the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Full Additional Charge), Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.48 of 2017 dated 02.08.2019.

3. The brief averments in the Plaint are as follows:-

3.1. On 29.10.2014 at around 5 a.m., the wife of the first Plaintiff and mother of the second and third Plaintiffs had carried milk can to the Milk Co- operative Society through Polur Taluk, Athimoor Erikolliaimedu, via Narayanasamy's son, Settu's land. The electric wire which was running in that place was not maintained properly for several years. The electric wire which was running, got cut off and it fell upon Roja on both her hands, due to which she was electrocuted, thrown out, and died on the spot. Usually, when the electric wire gets cut, the Electricity Department fixes the machine parts in the electric transformer in order to avoid passing of electricity. However, the electric wire was not properly maintained and was not changed. The Defendant Department had not maintained the electric wire and electric transformer in a proper manner for several years. On the day of incident, there was no thunder or wind (fhw;nwh. ,onah ,y;iy). The accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the Defendants' Department in not maintaining the electric wire properly. Hence, the Defendants are liable to pay the compensation to the victim. The first Plaintiff had given a complaint in respect of the said electric shock accident before the Polur Police Station and the same was registered in Cr.No.497/2014 u/s. 174 of Cr.P.C. The death occurred due to electric shock. The deceased, Roja, was aged 40 and she was hale and healthy. She was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing milk business and agricultural work. If she had been alive, she would have upgraded the Plaintiff's family. Because of the death of Roja, the Plaintiffs' future has become dark. Hence, the Plaintiffs had sent legal notice on 17.11.2014 to the Defendants. However, the Defendants had not sent a reply and had not given any compensation to the Plaintiffs. The above said electrical accident had occurred due to the carelessness and negligence of the Defendants only. Hence, the Plaintiffs claim Rs.11,00,000/- as compensation from the Defendants.

4. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the third Defendant and adopted by the first and second Defendants are as follows:-

4.1. The Plaint filed by the Plaintiffs is against the truth and is whimsical and unsustainable either in law or on facts. It is not accepted that the death of Roja occurred due to the electric wire belonging to Defendants' Department which was allegedly not maintained properly for several years. On the contrary, the Defendants contend that every month, the electric wires are properly maintained by the Defendants Department. It is true that when it was raining with thunder and lightning on 28.10.2024, at night, due to the cut off and falling of the electrical wire, the electric accident happened. However, it is not known for what reason, the deceased took the electric wire in her hand, which had been damaged by natural disaster. If the deceased had informed the Electrical Department without touching the electric wire by hand, the accident could have been prevented. The maintenance work in all transformers is done every month an