IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 28.02.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023 A.S.No.33 of 2024 The Executive Officer Elampillai Town Panchayat Elampillai Salem Erode Taluk .... Appellant Versus

1.K.Palaniappan Son of Kaliappan

2. Kannammal Wife of K.Palaniappan

3. The Block Development Officer Veerapandi Union Salem District

4. The Assistant Engineer (O& M)

TANGEDCO Elampillai

5. The Executive Engineer (O &M)

TANGEDCO Vempadithalam

6. The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO Udayapatty Salem District

7. The District Collector Collector Office Salem ....Respondents First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2018 made in O.S.No.63 of 2017 (P.O.P.No.76 of 2016) on the file of II Additional District Court, Salem.

For Appellant ... Ms.K.Indupriya For Respondent ... Mr.L.Ramanathan for R1 and R2 Mrs.R.Anitha Special Govt. Pleader for R3 and R7 Mrs.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy Standing counsel for R4, R5 and R6 A.S.No.40 of 2023

1. The Assistant Engineer (O& M)

TANGEDCO Elampillai

2. The Executive Engineer (O &M)

TANGEDCO Vempadithalam

3. The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO Udayapatty Salem District .... Appellants Versus

1.K.Palaniappan Son of Kaliappan

2. Kannammal Wife of K.Palaniappan

3. The Block Development Officer Veerapandi Union Salem District

4. The Executive Officer Elampillai Town Panchayat Elampillai Salem

5. The District Collector Collector Office, Salem ....Respondents First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2018 made in O.S.No.63 of 2017 (P.O.P.No.76 of 2016) on the file of II Additional District Court, Salem.

For Appellant ... Ms.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy For Respondent ... Mr.L.Ramanathan for R1 and R2 Mrs.R.Anitha Special Govt. Pleader for R3 and R5 Ms.K.Indupriya for R4 ------

COMMON 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?

ii