Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 786 (KER)

The Secretary, K. S. E. Board v. K. Jayapalan

2006-11-16

A.K.BASHEER, M.RAMACHANDRAN

body2006
Judgment :- Ramachandran, J. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thalassery in O.S.No.3 of 1996. The suit had been filed by the parents of deceased M.Reshma, who had been electrocuted on 14-03-1995. At about 3.30 P.M. on the day she had tread upon a live electric wire, which was lying on the ground, near her residence unaware of what lay in store. 2. The plaintiffs had contended that the Kerala State Electricity Board had failed to take reasonable care/precaution in the installation and maintenance of electric lines and were responsible for the tragic loss which befell on them. The minor girl, who was a high school student, possessed leadership qualities and the loss of expectation, which had resulted because of the accident, according to them, required to be compensated. The claim was for payment of Rs.3 lakhs, coming under various heads. A decree had been passed on 25-08-2000, awarding Rs.2 lakhs. 3. At the time of admission, an interim order had been passed. Thereby the appellants were directed to deposit Rs.one lakh towards the decree amount in the court below and the respondents were permitted to withdraw such sums. 4. Sri. N.D. Premachandran, standing counsel appeared for the Board. Sri. R.Surendran represented the respondents herein. 5. The Board contends that the finding of the Subordinate Judge about the negligence in the installation and maintenance of electric lines was without justification. By adhering to the standards prescribed, wired fuses had been provided so as to avoid a mishap by the accidental snapping of the electric lines. It failed to work, as the lines touched dry soil. It had been further submitted that the compensation was arbitrarily fixed and the order did not disclose reasons as to why a large amount was payable. 6. However, we concur with the submission of Mr.Surendran, who points out that a meticulous examination of relevant circumstances in fact is there and the award shows well invested discretion. According to him, the negligence was evident, since the electric lines lying on the ground were live, and this prima facie indicated that precautionary measures were not adequate, as reasonable safeguards were not employed. He further submits that deceased Reshma was a brilliant child and there was loss of companionship reasonably to be expected from the girl, and presence of a daughter would have helped the parents in their later life. He further submits that deceased Reshma was a brilliant child and there was loss of companionship reasonably to be expected from the girl, and presence of a daughter would have helped the parents in their later life. It is also pointed out that the Court had applied a multiplier of 15, taking notice of the age of the child as 14. The general factors to be noticed were the health of the child, the family background, the situation of the parents, the prospects of education etc., and there was no ground for criticism that the compensation awarded was arbitrary. 7. We notice that there is no dispute about the circumstances of death of the young girl. Evidently the Board is aware of the risk and dangers involved. May be they had incorporated automatic tripping systems and fuses, but that is found to be grossly inadequate. On the crucial day, they were not found as effectively functioning and the terrain of the area, if necessary, should not have escaped notice. We have therefore to conclude that a reasonable safety measure had not been available, and it very well could be classified as a negligent tort. 8. The Electrical Inspectorate of the State, after an investigation, had codified their findings in a report, made available to the Court as Ext.X1. The definite finding is that the accident arose because of the negligence of the Board. It was mandatory that overhead lines were to be protected with devices for rendering the lines harmless in case of snapping. There was "no guarding provided to the electric line at the place of incident" and this had directly contributed to the electric shock leading to loss of precious human life. According to them, automatic disconnection of supply had to be ensured when such mishaps occur and this was a failure, directly attributable to the Kerala State Electricity Board. It was taking notice of these circumstances that the Court had entered a finding, leading to award of compensation. 9. We find that the Board is aware of the possibility of snap of lines. It may be due to defective materials, imperfect drawing, bad maintenance or by external causes. In any of these circumstances, respondents may not be justified in contending that the mishap is by act of God. This is because accepted safety measures can de-energise the lines. 9. We find that the Board is aware of the possibility of snap of lines. It may be due to defective materials, imperfect drawing, bad maintenance or by external causes. In any of these circumstances, respondents may not be justified in contending that the mishap is by act of God. This is because accepted safety measures can de-energise the lines. It is not as if there are no parameters prescribed for resorting to safety measures for avoiding loss of life and property. Presence of live wires directly indicated a circumstance that there was failure to adhere to mandatory norms. As Mr. Surendran points out, even after the incident as above, callous negligence continues, as several cases of loss of life had been reported not only involving outsiders but even workmen engaged by the Board and the Board therefore is to be appropriately reminded of their duties, in stern language. 10. We find that the finding about the presence of negligence is based on materials that had been placed before the court. In the matter of fixing compensation, as well a realistic approach is evident. Award of compensation in case of negligence is the rule, and an exception has to be pleaded and proved. A complete exoneration is nevertheless a rarity. We uphold the judgment and decree. The appeal is dismissed. 11. We also endorse the anxiety expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the Board ought to have learned lessons and is required to apply itself more efficiently in the matter of erection, maintenance of electric installations etc. That is the minimum they owe to the society. We make no order as to costs.