JUDGMENT : P.T. ASHA, J. Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and Decree dated 10.12.2013 in O.S. No. 31 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Erode. Cross Objection is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enhance the decree amount granted in the Judgment and Decree dated 10.12.2013 made in O.S. No. 31 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode. 1. The defendant board is the appellant before this Court. The appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 31 of 2013, by the I Additional District Court, Erode, granting compensation of a sum of Rs. 6,89,800/- to the plaintiff/respondent. 2. The facts in brief which has preceded the filing of the above appeal are as follows. The parties are referred to in the same rank as before the Trial Court. 3. The defendant board had effected the electricity service connection to one M/s. KLF Private Limited, an Oil Extracting Unit. For this purpose, the board had drawn a High Tension Wire over and across the plaintiff’s house and house of others. The said move was vehemently objected to by the villagers. However, the defendant board proceeded to effect the electricity service connection with the help of the local Police. 4. In front of the plaintiff’s house there was a Albizia tree (“TAMIL”) the line was running over the tree and was likely to come in contact with the said tree which is dangerous. The plaintiff and her husband were advised to cut the tree so as to avoid the danger. The plaintiff thereupon made enquiries with the linemen as to when the tree could be cut, since there was every likelihood of an electrocution while cutting the tree. The linemen informed the plaintiff that the same could be cut when the electricity supply was stopped. 5. On 02.06.2011, the plaintiff was informed that the current supply would be switched of at 8.30 a.m. and she could start cutting the tree. Believing this, the plaintiff proceeded to cut the tree and in the process got electrocuted and was thrown of the ladder. As a result of the fall, she had suffered serious injuries to her spinal cord. On 02.06.2011, the plaintiff was informed that the current supply would be switched of at 8.30 a.m. and she could start cutting the tree. Believing this, the plaintiff proceeded to cut the tree and in the process got electrocuted and was thrown of the ladder. As a result of the fall, she had suffered serious injuries to her spinal cord. She was rushed to the Ashraff Ali Hospital, Perundurai, first and thereafter to the Trust Hospital, Erode. Ultimately, she was advised to go to the Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore for special treatment for her spinal injuries. 6. The plaintiff would contend that she had undergone treatment at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, however, there was no improvement in her health condition. The plaintiff would submit that prior to the fall she was working as an agricultural coolie earning daily wages and by reason of this fall, she has been reduced to a vegetative state as she is unable to get up and move around and consequently not able to go out and eke out her livelihood. 7. The plaintiff would submit that her son had lodged a complaint with the Sub Inspector of Police, Thingalur on 03.06.2011. Since there was no response, she had issued a legal notice on 04.07.2011 calling upon the defendant board to compensate her for her injuries. On 16.08.2011, the defendant board had sent a reply refuting their liability. 8. The plaintiff would also contend that after her accident and injury, the defendant board had insulated the overhead High Tension Wire, which clearly would go to show that it was only on account of the negligence of the defendant board that the plaintiff had sustained her injuries. The plaintiff had therefore come forward with the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- under various heads. 9. The 2nd defendant had filed a written statement wherein except for denying the averments contained in the plaint and calling upon the plaintiff to prove the allegations, the defendant would contend that without informing the board and getting their consent, the plaintiff had got on to ladder and the injury was on account of the fact that she had fallen of the ladder and not due to electrocution. The defendant board would therefore seek to have the suit dismissed. 10. The learned I Additional District Judge, Erode had framed the following issues: “TAMIL” 11. The defendant board would therefore seek to have the suit dismissed. 10. The learned I Additional District Judge, Erode had framed the following issues: “TAMIL” 11. The plaintiff had been examined as PW-1, her neighbor (relative) as PW-2 and Dr. B. Roy Wilson Armstrong, who had given her the initial treatment as well as issued her with the Disability Certificate was examined as PW-3. The plaintiff had marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 in support of her case. On the side of the defendants, a Junior Engineer of the defendant board at Thingalur was examined as DW-1. 12. The learned Judge taking into account the evidence of PW-3, Dr. B. Roy Wilson Armstrong and the negligence shown by the defendant board in not insulating the live wire while drawing the line to the factory of the said KLF Private Limited had decreed the suit and directed the defendant board to pay the compensation of Rs. 6,89,800/-. 13. Challenging this Judgment and Decree, the present appeal is filed and the points that arises for consideration in this appeal are as follows: (a) Whether the defendant board can be held responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff as one sustained on account of their negligence? (b) Whether the cross objection filed by the plaintiff should be allowed? 14. Ms. Hemalatha Gajapathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants/ appellants would prima facie submit that the evidence of PW-2 cannot be believed since he is a relative of the plaintiff and therefore an interested witness. She would further argue that the plaintiff has not produced the certificate issued by the hospital to which she was initially moved and therefore the subsequent report cannot be relied upon. 15. The learned counsel would also put forward an argument that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff was not on account of the electrocution but only on account of the fact that she had fallen down from the ladder. She would submit that no negligence can be attributed to the defendant board. 16. Per contra, Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent would submit that the accident had taken place on 02.06.2011 at 8.30 hours and the plaintiff was immediately shifted to Ashraff Ali Hospital, Perundurai and thereafter to the Trust Hospital, Erode. She would submit that no negligence can be attributed to the defendant board. 16. Per contra, Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent would submit that the accident had taken place on 02.06.2011 at 8.30 hours and the plaintiff was immediately shifted to Ashraff Ali Hospital, Perundurai and thereafter to the Trust Hospital, Erode. He would submit that a perusal of Discharge Summary, Ex.A.8 issued by Ganga Medical Centre and Hospital (P) Ltd. would show that the plaintiff was brought to their Hospital at 20.04 hours (8.04 p.m.). Therefore, on the very same day of the accident, the plaintiff has been moved to the Ganga Hospital considering the gravity of her injuries and the emergent need to perform a surgery on her. Therefore, the allegation that the accident as alleged has not been taken place is nothing but an attempt to confuse the Court. 17. The learned counsel would rely on the evidence PW-3, Dr. B. Roy Wilson Armstrong, who has spoken extensively on the injuries sustained by the plaintiff and percentage of her disability. He was the Doctor who had attended on the plaintiff at the Ganga Hospital and preformed surgery on her. His evidence on the disability sustained by the plaintiff is vital particularly when the defendants have not been able to rebut his oral evidence and Ex.A.11, Disability Certificate. 18. Per contra, when the evidence of DW-1, Junior Engineer of the defendant board is considered he has clearly deposed that the line which was originally running over the plaintiff’s house was not insulated and only after the injuries were sustained by the plaintiff it was insulated. He would also admit that originally the work of the linemen was done by private contractor and only now they have seven linemen constantly monitoring the electricity line running across various places. These admissions would clearly prove the negligence on the side of the 2nd defendant. 19. The learned counsel would also rely on the Judgment reported in M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and Others, 2002 (2) SCC 162 in support of his arguments. 20. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records. 21. It is an admitted case that the defendant board has drawn a High Tension Line over the plaintiff’s property. 19. The learned counsel would also rely on the Judgment reported in M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and Others, 2002 (2) SCC 162 in support of his arguments. 20. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records. 21. It is an admitted case that the defendant board has drawn a High Tension Line over the plaintiff’s property. It is also an admitted fact that the Albizia tree in front of the plaintiff’s house was coming into contact with this High Tension Line. It is the case of the plaintiff that she was advised to remove the tree as and when the linemen informed her that the current supplied through the line had been switched off. The plaintiff’s case is that on 02.06.2011 at 8.30 a.m. she had undertaken to cut the tree after receiving information from the workman of the defendant board that the supply had been cut. 22. However, it appears that the electricity supply was not cut off and consequently the plaintiff who had got on to ladder to cut the tree had got electrocuted, as a result of which, she had been thrown off the ladder. This fall has grievously injured her spinal cord, which as per her Disability Certificate, Ex.A.11 would indicate is 100% and the plaintiff has become a complete paraplegic. 23. The Disability Certificate, Ex.A.11, would read that the plaintiff is confined to bed, has bladder/bowel incontinence and is dependent of third parties to move around for personal hygiene as well as day to day activities. 24. It is clear that the injury had been caused only on account of her fall after been electrocuted. It is also admitted in evidence, by the defendant that when the line was originally drawn it was not insulated. The insulation has been done only after the mishap. Therefore, on the face of it, the negligence on the part of the defendant board is Writ large. Further, it was the duty of the linesmen to cut the branches of the tree before drawing the High Tension Line. Therefore, the first point for consideration is held against the defendant board. 25. The Trial Court after finding that the defendant board has been negligent has proceeded to award compensation of a sum of Rs. Further, it was the duty of the linesmen to cut the branches of the tree before drawing the High Tension Line. Therefore, the first point for consideration is held against the defendant board. 25. The Trial Court after finding that the defendant board has been negligent has proceeded to award compensation of a sum of Rs. 6,89,800/- the plaintiff has filed a cross objection, in which she has contended that the learned Judge has not taken into account the permanent disability suffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was employed as a coolie and earning daily wages and by reason of the injury is not able to even walk. Further, the Court below has not taken into consideration the disability sustained by the plaintiff on account of the negligence of the defendant board. 26. By reason of the injury, the plaintiff is practically in a vegetative state and there is no scope of her resuming normal activities. The Court below has not awarded any compensation towards the disability. The plaintiff has only sought for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as enhanced compensation in her cross objection. 27. From the evidence of PW-3 and on examining Ex.A.8, Ex.A.10 and Ex.A.11, it is clearly evident that the plaintiff has suffered disability of over 100%. She is totally dependent on the other people for carrying on her normal activities itself. The Doctor has deposed that even for her personal hygiene she requires the assistance of third persons and she is suffering from bladder/bowel incontinence. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was aged just about 35 years and considering the fact that her disability is going to be life long, the Court below ought to have granted compensation under the head of permanent disability. Therefore, the cross objection is allowed and the compensation is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 28. In fine, the First Appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection is ordered as prayed for. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.