JUDGMENT : 1. Kerala State Electricity Board (for short the "Board"), the first defendant in O.S. No. 37/2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Koyilandy, has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2009 directing to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. A lady by name Mallika expired on 25.3.2006 due to electrocution. Respondents 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) her legal heirs have filed the suit for realization of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation, from all the defendants. 2. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to the cases of the parties. 3. Smt. Mallika was the wife of the fourth plaintiff. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the children born to them in the wedlock. While Smt. Mallika was residing along with her family, on 25.3.2006 she died due to electrocution, when she attempted to connect the cable wire to the socket of the Television Set installed in her residence. Smt. Mallika was aged 47 years at the time of her death. She was working as a housemaid and was earning an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month. The death occurred on account of sheer negligence of the defendants. Due to the untoward incident plaintiffs 1 to 3 had lost their loving mother and the 4th plaintiff had lost his beloved wife. As the legal heirs of the deceased, they have claimed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation from the defendants. 4. The first defendant is the Electricity Board and the second and third defendants are cable operators. 5. The Board resisted the claim inter alia contending that there was no negligence on the part of the Board and in fact the occupants of the residence have not sought for the permission of the Board for installing cable connection to their television. The death was due to the carelessness of the deceased and the Board is not responsible for her death. The unauthorized and illegal drawing of cable wire by the cable operators through electric posts to provide connection to the T.V. installed in the residence of the deceased caused her death and hence, the Board is not liable to pay any amount as compensation. 6. The second defendant contended that the fourth plaintiff was a subscriber of the cable connection run by name 'Telnet cable vision'. 6. The second defendant contended that the fourth plaintiff was a subscriber of the cable connection run by name 'Telnet cable vision'. The cable is connected to the television set through a socket provided at the receiving end. The allegation that Smt. Mallika died due to electric shock while connecting cable wire to the television is not correct. The cable wire was drawn through the extreme side of the road along wooden poles erected at different places and electric posts owned by the Board were not used for drawing the cable wire. The death was not due to the negligence of the second defendant. 7. The third defendant, M/s .Zener cable vision contended that they have no subscribers at that location and the family of the plaintiffs was the subscriber of Telnet cable vision run by the second defendant. This defendant was not responsible for the mishap. The third defendant had supplied optical signals to the Telnet Cable Vision via optical fibre cable and optical fibre cable will not contain any electric supply or shock. The death of Smt. Mallika was due to the negligence of the Board. The quantum of income stated was also disputed. 8. Before the court below PW-s 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. On the side of the defendants, DWs1 and 2 were examined and Ext.B1 to B3 were marked. Exts.C1 and X1 were also marked. According to the court below, the Board was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. The said verdict is under challenge. 9. Heard Adv. Sri. Sudheer Ganesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant/Board, Adv. Sri. Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4 and 7 to 9 and Adv. E. Narayanan for the respondents 5 and 6. 10. The death of Smt. Mallika, wife of the fourth plaintiff and the mother of the other plaintiffs was on 25.3.2006. Ext.A1 post mortem certificate would establish that her death was due to electrocution. The plaintiffs have approached the court claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from defendants 1 to 3. The court below by the impugned judgment and decree, awarded an amount of Rs. 3,62,000/- with interest as compensation to be realized from the first defendant Board. 11. Ext.A1 post mortem certificate would establish that her death was due to electrocution. The plaintiffs have approached the court claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from defendants 1 to 3. The court below by the impugned judgment and decree, awarded an amount of Rs. 3,62,000/- with interest as compensation to be realized from the first defendant Board. 11. The allegation is that when the deceased tried to connect cable to the TV set in her residence she was instantaneously electrocuted and she fell down and died within seconds. It is not disputed that she was electrocuted at the place and at the time mentioned by the plaintiffs. The evidence on record would show that at the time of the incident there was no one in the house except the deceased. PW-1, her daughter examined to prove the incident, was in the neighboring house at the time of the incident and she rushed to the spot on hearing the clamor of the deceased. Ext.A3, Ext.A4 and A5 would indicate that the fourth plaintiff, the husband of the deceased was a subscriber of Telnet cable vision, the fifth respondent/second defendant at the relevant time. 12. PW-1 testified that her mother got electric shock from the cable wire when she tried to connect cable wire to the T.V. PW-2, a neighbour, who rushed to the residence of the deceased on hearing the clamor of the deceased also deposed before the court that the deceased sustained shock when she attempted to connect the cable to the TV. According to PW-2, the deceased was found holding the cable wire in her hand when she was thrown to the floor due to electric shock. PW-2 stated that to save her life, though the main switch was switched off immediately and fuse was removed, there was electric connection in the cable and hence to disconnect the electricity in the wire he used a wooden stick and thus the cable wire was thrown out from her hand. Since, no eye witness was available to prove the entire incident, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 who rushed to the spot immediately after the incident assumes importance. Both of them found Smt. Mallika lying on the floor holding the cable wire in her hand. Their version remained unshaken during cross-examination and hence cannot be discarded as untruthful. Since, no eye witness was available to prove the entire incident, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 who rushed to the spot immediately after the incident assumes importance. Both of them found Smt. Mallika lying on the floor holding the cable wire in her hand. Their version remained unshaken during cross-examination and hence cannot be discarded as untruthful. It is pertinent to note that the evidence on record would show that the cable line was drawn through electric posts in that locality though, there was an endeavour on the side of the second defendant to make it appear that cable wires were drawn through wooden poles and electric posts were not used to draw the cable wire. Of course, a Commission report is available on record, but that will not reflect the correct picture of the drawing of cable wire and the other factors relevant, as the Commissioner inspected the property almost one year after the incident. But it is to be noted that the Electrical Inspector attached to the Inspectorate of the Board had inspected the spot immediately after the incident and submitted an inquiry report marked as Ext.X1. PW-4 is an employee attached to the Electrical Inspectorate who accompanied the Electrical Inspector during spot inspection. He is acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the Electrical Inspector who prepared Ext. X1. As the Electrical Inspector retired from service at the time of evidence, the report was proved through PW-4, a member of the team. It is significant to note that the report indicate that no power blocking capacitor was fixed on the sending and receiving ends of the cable and so the cable wire might have touched the electric wire elsewhere and thus electric current happened to be on the receiving end of the cable wire and when the deceased tried to connect the cable to the T.V. she sustained electric shock. He has also testified that the cable operators have not sought for the permission of the Board to supply cable connection in that locality by drawing wire with the aid of electric posts. DW-1, the proprietor of Telnet cable vision had admitted that the husband of the plaintiff was a subscriber of his cable connection. According to him, cable wires were not drawn through electric posts, instead wooden posts were installed for the same. DW-1, the proprietor of Telnet cable vision had admitted that the husband of the plaintiff was a subscriber of his cable connection. According to him, cable wires were not drawn through electric posts, instead wooden posts were installed for the same. Of-course, his attempt was to make it appear that he had obtained permission from the Electricity Board to draw the cable wire where it was drawn through electric posts and hence drawing of electric wire was done legally and insulation was provided to the cable wire on the receiving end and that there was no possibility to have the presence of electricity in the cable wire so as to cause electric shock to the deceased. Though the second defendant had contended that permission had been sought for, from the Board to draw the cable wire through the electric posts, he could not produce even a scrap of paper to substantiate the said contention. So also he had admitted before the court that he could not pinpoint the electric posts where permission had already been granted by the Board to draw the cable wire. In short, there was no documentary evidence with the second defendant to show that its' cable connection in that locality was not unauthorized when the untoward incident took place. 13. As referred above, Ext.X1 report prepared by the Electrical Inspector was to the effect that the incident happened just because of the illegal drawing of cable wire through electric posts. Ext.X1 was also specific to the effect that the second defendant had drawn cable wire against the provisions of Electricity Rules, 1956. Rule 29 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 is reproduced for easy reference: “29. Ext.X1 was also specific to the effect that the second defendant had drawn cable wire against the provisions of Electricity Rules, 1956. Rule 29 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 is reproduced for easy reference: “29. Construction, installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric supply lines and apparatus - (1) All electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient ratings for power, insulation and estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty which they may be required to perform under the environmental conditions of installation, and shall be constructed, installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of [human beings, animals and property] (2) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, the relevant code of practice of the [Bureau of Indian Standards] [including National Electrical Code] if any may be followed to carry out the purposes of this rule and in the event of any inconsistency, the provision of these rules shall prevail. (3) The material and apparatus used shall conform to the relevant specifications of the [Bureau of Indian Standards] where such specifications have already been laid down. Rule 87 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 deals with lines crossing or approaching each other. The Rule says that where an overhead line drawn crosses or is in the proximity of the telecommunication line, either the owner of the overhead line or the telecommunication line shall make arrangements to provide for protective devices or guarding arrangements in the manner laid down in the Code of Practice or guidelines prepared by the Power and Tele communication Coordination Committee subject to the provisions of the sub-rules specifically mentioned. In fact no reliable evidence is available on record to prove that the cable operator had provided any such protective measures or taken extra caution to avoid or avert unexpected dangers.” 14. It has come out in evidence that the cable was drawn through the electric posts and not through wooden posts as contended by the second defendant. Protective devices were not provided in anticipation to meet unexpected circumstances or danger likely to cause harm to the customers. Lack of due care and caution on the part of the second defendant is abundantly clear from the evidence. It is the common knowledge that the cable operators are collecting fees/charges for providing cable connection. Protective devices were not provided in anticipation to meet unexpected circumstances or danger likely to cause harm to the customers. Lack of due care and caution on the part of the second defendant is abundantly clear from the evidence. It is the common knowledge that the cable operators are collecting fees/charges for providing cable connection. Therefore, they are responsible and liable to provide proper care and precaution in maintaining the cable wire to ensure safety. 15. Most importantly, the Inspectorate had submitted Ext.X1 report after an inquiry, immediately after the mishap. This report clearly indicates the reason for the unfortunate incident. As per the report the death had taken place because of electrocution as the cable wire came into contact with live wires of the electric transmission lines and the deceased suffered electric shock when she attempted to connect cable wire with the T.V set. This being the most crucial aspect of the present case, the second defendant cannot wriggle out of their responsibility and liability especially in the absence of evidence that drawing of cable wires was with the permission of the Board. Negligence stands established when they failed to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission wire connected to the residence of their customers/subscribers. 16. Ext.C1 commission report which was prepared after one year of the incident would show that the cable wire were drawn through the telephone posts installed near the place of occurrence and the Commissioner could not see that cable wires were drawn through the electric posts installed near the locality of the residence of the deceased. But the commissioner had made a reference that after the tragic incident all the cable wires drawn through electric posts were shifted to telephone posts. Ext.X1 report reveals that the cable operator was responsible for the unfortunate incident which resulted in the death of the deceased. But admittedly, the Board has not initiated any action against the second defendant for the illegal act of drawing cable wire through the electric posts. It has clearly come out in evidence that the second defendant who had given the cable connection to the residence of the deceased did not obtain permission from the Board or other authorized authorities to use the electric posts to draw the cable line. It has clearly come out in evidence that the second defendant who had given the cable connection to the residence of the deceased did not obtain permission from the Board or other authorized authorities to use the electric posts to draw the cable line. The inaction of the Board in not proceeding against the cable operators would show that unfortunately the Board also failed to discharge its duties promptly in the manner expected of them. It is evident from the record that the third defendant had no connection with the second defendant in drawing the line and it only supplied optical signals via optical fibre cable to the second defendant and hence no responsibility could be extended to the third defendant for the unfortunate incident. 17. The learned counsel for the second defendant argued that apart from Ext.X1 report another report was also there with respect to the incident prepared by the Electrical Inspector. But there was no material to substantiate the said argument and hence the contention that Ext.X1 has no value at all, is only to be rejected. Ext.X1 prepared by the Electrical Inspector was proved through PW-4 a member of the team who inspected the spot immediately after the incident. So the argument that Ext.X1 could not be accepted as a genuine and relevant document, is only to be rejected. 18. Now the question to be looked into is whether the Board is also negligent in discharging its responsibility and if so whether the Board is liable to compensate the legal representatives of the deceased. As referred above, from the materials available on record, it stands established that the death of the deceased was due to the electric shock sustained by her from the cable wire and that too while she was attempting to connect the cable wire to the T.V. Normally the possibility to sustain shock from cable wire is remote because of insulation of the wire. But if any part of the wire was left without insulation touching the electric line at any spot or for any other reason, the possibility of having electric supply in the wire cannot be ruled out. I am quite distressed to note that the Board has not taken any action before or after the incident against the cable operator for unauthorized drawing of the cable wire through electric posts. I am quite distressed to note that the Board has not taken any action before or after the incident against the cable operator for unauthorized drawing of the cable wire through electric posts. Undoubtedly, the Board is carrying out inherently hazardous and risky activity or job for giving comfort to human life, but at the same time engaged with activities which endangers human lives. Law is well settled that a person or establishment undertaking activities involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate the victims irrespective of any negligence or carelessness. In such circumstances the activity of Board would be governed by the principle of strict liability. 19. Doctrine of strict liability is explained in Rylands vs. Fletcher, 1868 LR (3) HL 330 as under: “The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prime facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” The principle of Ryland vs. Fletcher is followed in several Indian cases. Maneyapanda Madappa vs. Kuttanda Kariyapp, AIR 1964 Mysore 80, Darshan Ram and Another vs. Nazar Ram, AIR 1989 Punjab and Haryana 253. In the present case if the Board was also vigilant and exercised caution, this unfortunate incident could have been avoided. Incidents of this nature does not appear to be an unusual or stray incident. Periodical inspection and attention by the Board are expected to avoid and circumvent these types of unauthorized or illegal activities. The Board is also bound to alert and sensitize common people about the precautions, preventive steps and care to be taken while dealing with the electricity and electronic equipment especially in residences by supplying bit notices and also by imparting classes or awareness programmes in residential areas in small groups and through print and visual media. Safety as well protection of citizen from danger, is pivotal. 20. The whole gamut of evidence also established negligence, inertia and carelessness on the part of the Board. As the Board was not vigilant it cannot escape from liability relying on exception to the rule of strict liability. It is doubtless that the incident was not because of any unforeseen natural event. 20. The whole gamut of evidence also established negligence, inertia and carelessness on the part of the Board. As the Board was not vigilant it cannot escape from liability relying on exception to the rule of strict liability. It is doubtless that the incident was not because of any unforeseen natural event. In M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari, 2002 (2) SCC 162 the Apex Court has observed as follows: “7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension, the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road, the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as strict liability. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as strict liability. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm, he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions. 9. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin in English Common Law when it was pre-pounded in the celebrated case of Rylands vs. Fletcher, 1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330. Blackburn, J., the author of the said rule had observed thus in the said decision. The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril and if he does so, he is prima-facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” 21. Following the said decision a Division Bench of this Court in Moidu Haji vs. Kunhikrishnan Nair and Others, 2013 (3) KHC 730 held in a case where a painter died due to electrocution when he climbed on the top of the compound wall to paint the grill which was erected on the top of the wall, that the Board is liable to pay compensation applying the doctrine of strict liability. 22. For the afore-stated reasons, I have no hesitation in concluding that the defences advanced by the Board and the second defendant are of no avail and that the contentions of these defendants that they are not liable to pay compensation are devoid of merit and are liable for rejection. Therefore, the finding of the court below exonerating the second defendant and holding that the Board alone is liable to pay the compensation is not correct. Hence, the Board as well as the second defendant are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. 23. Therefore, the finding of the court below exonerating the second defendant and holding that the Board alone is liable to pay the compensation is not correct. Hence, the Board as well as the second defendant are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. 23. The purpose of awarding damages is to compensate the loss suffered by the victim or their family though the loss suffered cannot be compensated in terms of money. When the death is of a house wife who was managing the whole affairs inside the family, will definitely shatter the entire family. The mental agony and hardship being suffered by the family will be beyond imagination. The deceased was aged only 47 years at the time of her death. The court below considered the age of the deceased and also the fact that she was a house wife, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,62,000/-. The compensation awarded cannot be said to be high and excessive. 24. Therefore, I find that the Board and the second defendant are jointly and severally liable to compensate the victim's family. The respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to realize in total an amount Rs. 3,62,000/- with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realization from defendants 1 and 2. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed modifying the impugned decree and judgment to the extent stated above.