Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M.Mariammal on 14 June, 2021
1 S.A.(MD)NO.1044 OF 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.1044 of 2011 and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
K.Pudur, Madurai – 7,
Representing through
Superintending Engineer.
2. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anuppanadi, Madurai – 9.
Representing through
Assistant Executive Engineer.
... Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2/
Defendants 1 & 2
Vs.
1. M.Mariammal
2. M.Thamarai Kannan
3. M.Mani
4. Minor M.Ravi
5. Govindhan
(R-2 & R-3 are declared as major vide
Order dated 03.02.2016 made in
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2014)
(Minor R-4 is represented by his
mother Mariammal R1) ... Respondents/Appellants/
Plaintiffs
6. The District Collector,
Shenoy Nagar, Madurai,
State of Tamil Nadu. ... 6th Respondent/3rd Respondent/
3rd Defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/11
2 S.A.(MD)NO.1044 OF 2011
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.
No.32 of 2009 dated 25.02.2011 on the file of the I Additional
District Judge, Madurai, reversing the Judgment and Decree of
the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai in O.S.No.404
of 2004 dated 25.11.2008.
For Appellants : Ms.M.Rajeshwari,
for Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha.
For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.A.Shahul Hameed
***
JUDGMENT
The defendants/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board are the
appellants in this second appeal.
2. O.S.No.404 of 2004 was filed by respondents 1 to 5
herein seeking compensation from the defendants. Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board was shown as defendants 1 and 2, while the
State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector was
shown as the third defendant. The case of the plaintiffs is that
they were living in a thatched hut at Rajammal Nagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3 S.A.(MD)NO.1044 OF 2011
Muniyandi, husband of the first plaintiff, after removing the
thatched structure was putting up a concrete house. On
26.10.2000 at 9.00 a.m., when he was watering the terrace
that was under construction, he came in contact with a low
hanging live wire. He fell down and died as a result. In this
regard, Crime No.1075 of 2000 was registered on the file of
Avaniyapuram police station under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The
specific case of the plaintiffs is that Muniyandi died due to
electrocution which took place on account of the negligent
maintenance of the electricity lines by the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board. Seeking compensation, Ex.A.3 notice dated
08.11.2000 was sent by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The
same was received by the defendants who issued a reply.
Since the demand set out in the notice was not complied with,
the legal heirs of the deceased Muniyandi instituted O.S.No.
404 of 2004 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.
2,00,000/-.
3. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board filed written
statement denying the claim. It was contended by the
appellants that the electric lines were properly maintained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4 S.A.(MD)NO.1044 OF 2011
and that only due to carelessness on the part of the deceased
Muniyandi, the occurrence had taken place. It was further
contended that the defendants are not in any way responsible
for the occurrence. The first plaintiff Mariammal examined
herself as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 were marked. On the
side of the defendants, an official was examined as D.W.1.
The Postmortem report was marked as Ex.B.1. In fact, the
plaintiff themselves had marked the very same postmortem
report as Ex.A.2. The learned trial Judge after a consideration
of the evidence on record, by judgment and decree dated
25.11.2008 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiffs filed A.S.No.32 of 2009 before the I Additional
District Judge, Madurai. By the impugned order dated
25.02.2011, the appellate Court set aside the judgment and
decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal and directed
the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation
to the plaintiff. Challenging the same, this second appeal has
been filed.
4. This second appeal was admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 S.A.(MD)NO.1044 OF 2011
“i) Whether the Judgment and Decree of
the lower appellate Court is sustainable in view
of Ex.A.2 in which the cause of death is
mentioned as due to head injury?
ii) Whether the lower appellate Court
erred in fixing the burden of proof on the
defendant/appellant herein?”
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of
grounds and called upon this Court to answer the substantial
questions of law in favour of the appellants and reverse the
decision of the lower appellate Court and restore the decision
of the trial Court.
6. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for
respondents 1 to 5 herein submitted that the impugned
decision of the first appellate Court does not call for any
interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6 S.A.(MD)NO.1044 OF 2011
7. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to
5 strongly submitted that the death of the deceased Muniyandi
was due to electrocution and that the same had taken place on
account of the negligent maintenance of the electric lines by
the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He drew my attention to the
contents of Ex.A.1 First Information Report in which the father
of the deceased had alleged that the occurrence had taken
place only on account of electrocution. He also drew my
attention to the contents of the postmortem report. It refers to
a lacerated wound over the upper part of the left side neck of
the deceased. He placed reliance on the decision reported in
2019 ACJ 1552 (Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board V. T. Ranganathan). In the aforesaid
decision, even the postmortem report was not marked, the
learned Judge had sustained the claim of the plaintiff. He
would also state that while it is true that the construction in
question was coming up on a poramboke land, it was the duty
of the appellants Board to have issued notice for forbearing
the deceased from putting up or continuing the construction.
According to him, the lines were hanging low and thus there
was negligence on both sides. Since there was negligence on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7 S.A.(MD)NO.1044 OF 2011
the part of the deceased also, the claim was restricted to 50%.
According to him, the formula laid down in the Motor Vehicles
Act will have to be followed and in the case on hand, the first
appellate Court had adopted the said approach. He would also
draw my attention to the decision of the Apex Court reported
in 2002 ACJ 526 (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board V. Shail
Kumari) and submitted that the principles of strict liability will
have to be applied in this case.
8. I carefully considered the rival contentions and
went through the evidence on record.
9. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that
the principle of strict liability will have to be applied in cases
involving electrocution. But the moot question is whether the
deceased died due to electrocution. There can be no doubt the
burden lies only on the plaintiffs. To establish the cause of
death, the plaintiffs have marked Ex.A.1 First Information
Report and Ex.A.2 Postmortem Report. Ex.A.1 First
Information Report is a mere version of the father of the
deceased and it cannot assist the Court to determine the cause
of death. In Ex.A.2 Postmortem Report, cause of death has
been mentioned as due to head injury.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8 S.A.(MD)NO.1044 OF 2011
10. I carefully went through the contents of the
Postmortem Report. Nowhere has it been mentioned that the
deceased died due to electrocution. Of course there is a
reference to a lacerated injury found on the neck of the
deceased. From this, I cannot assume that the plaintiff came in
contact with the live electric wire and that caused his eventual
death. The plaintiffs ought to have examined the doctor and
established before the trial Court that the death was only due
to electrocution. They have not chosen to examine the said
official. There is nothing on record to show that any further
investigation was conducted or final report was filed
indicating the cause of death as due to electrocution. If the
final report had been filed indicating that the death was due to
electrocution, certainly the onus would have shifted to the
respondents. No such final report was marked by the
plaintiffs.
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, the deceased Muniyandi had put
up a construction below the electric lines on a poramboke
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9 S.A.(MD)NO.1044 OF 2011
land. It appears to have been a thatched shed earlier and after
removing the same, a concrete construction was being put up.
Even going by the case of the plaintiffs, it was the deceased
Muniyandi who had come in contact with the electric lines and
that too at the neck level. From this plaintiffs' version, even
though I have held that the death is not due to electrocution,
one can come to the conclusion that it is not a case of
contributory negligence. The appellant Board can be fastened
with liability, only if they are at fault. It is not the case of the
plaintiffs that the live wire got snapped and fell on the
deceased. There was no leakage of electricity. It was the
deceased Muniyandi who had come in contact with the wire.
Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can liability be
fastened on the appellant Board. The trial Court had correctly
approached the issue and dismissed the suit. The appellate
Court had completely misdirected itself and decreed the suit. I
answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the
appellants. The Judgment and Decree of the first appellate
Court is set aside and the Judgment and Decree of the trial
Court is restored.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10 S.A.(MD)NO.1044 OF 2011
12. This second appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1. The I Additional District Judge,
Madurai.
2. The III Additional Subordinate Judge,
Madurai.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
11 S.A.(MD)NO.1044 OF 2011
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
S.A.(MD)No.1044 of 2021
14.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
