Madras High Court
The Chairman vs Kaliammal on 7 September, 2021
A.S.(MD)No.145 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
A.S.(MD)No.145 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4854 of 2021
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
800, K.R.R.Maligai,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Theni District.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chinnamanur,
Theni District. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Kaliammal
2.Minor Janifer Somya
(Minor 2nd respondent represented by her
mother/1st respondent)
3.Arulanadham
4.Annammal
5.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Theni District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
A.S.(MD)No.145 of 2021
Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code r/w.
Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.20 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions
Court, Periyakulam, Theni District, dated 19.03.2018.
For Appellants : Mrs.Rajeswari,
For Mr.M.Mohan Babu
For Respondents : Mr.J.Barathan for R1 to R4
Mr.R.Ragavvendran,
Government Advocate for R5.
JUDGEMENT
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The defendants in O.S.No.20 of 2016 on the file of the Additional
District and Sessions Court, Periyakulam, Theni District, are the appellants in
this appeal suit. The suit was filed by the respondents herein claiming
compensation to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation from the
appellants. The case of the plaintiffs is that on 07.01.2014, Savarimuthu,
husband of the first respondent herein and father of the second and third
respondents and son of the fourth respondent died due to electrocution. It is the
specific case of the plaintiffs that on 07.01.2014 at about 07.30 a.m., when
Savarimuthu was standing on the road leading to a coconut grove, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.145 of 2021
electricity line running overhead snapped and fell on him leading to his death
due to electrocution. In this regard, Ex.B2/FIR was registered on the file of the
Rayappanpatti Police Station. Since the defendants are liable to pay
compensation and since there was response to the suit notice/Ex.A3 issued by
the plaintiffs, the suit came to be filed.
3.The appellants filed written statement controverting the plaint
averments. The defendants submitted that the deceased/Savarimuthu was also
responsible for causing of the accident. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial
Court framed the necessary issues.
3.The first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1, one Velmurugan was
examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. One Pandidurai was
examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
4.After considering the evidence on either side, the trial Court decreed
the suit by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.03.2018 directing the
appellants to pay a sum of Rs.14,20,000/- to the plaintiffs with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum. Questioning the same, this appeal suit came to be filed.
During pendency of the appeal, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was deposited by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.145 of 2021
appellants and it is stated that the said a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- has also been
withdrawn.
5.The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated all the contentions set
out in the memorandum of the grounds and called upon this Court to set aside
the impugned judgment and decree.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that the impugned judgment and decree do not call for any interference.
7.I carefully considered the rival contentions. The points for my
consideration are in two folds:-
“(a) Whether Savarimuthu died due to electrocution and
whether the appellants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs?
and
(b) If so, whether the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Court below is justified?”
8.As already noted that the occurrence had taken place on 07.01.2014 at
about 07.30 a.m. The complaint was lodged before Rayappanpatti Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.145 of 2021
Station at about 10.30 a.m., by Kaliammal, the wife of the
deceased/Savarimuthu. Based on the same, Crime No.9 of 2014 was registered
under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. It was marked as Ex.A2. In Ex.A2, Kaliammal
had mentioned that her husband had gone for work to the coconut grove of a
private company. She also had stated that he was plucking coconuts with an
implement known as “Thorati”. During the process of plucking, they had
fallen on the electricity lines running overhead which snapped and fell on her
husband causing his death. D.W.1, the official of TNEB had also deposed on
the same lines. D.W.1 had categorically testified that the spot inspection
conducted by them revealed that the accident had taken place when
Savarimuthu was attempting to pluck the coconuts by standing on the ground.
Therefore, the Court below erred in fastening the entire liability on the
appellants. Savarimuthu by his conduct had clearly contributed to the
occurrence. The Court below ought to have fastened his contributory
negligence to 50%. Even though income proof has not been shown, the Court
below assumed that he would have earned a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, in
the interest of justice, I do not want to interfere with the said quantification. In
view of the fixing of contributory negligence on the deceased at 35%, the
quantum fixed by the Court will have to be halved. The impugned judgment
and decree is accordingly modified and the appeal suit is partly allowed. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.145 of 2021
stated that the appeal was filed belatedly. At the time of condoning the delay,
this Court had stipulated that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- should be deposited by
the appellants. The appellants in compliance with the said condition had
deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the credit of the suit. It is also stated that
the plaintiffs have withdrawn a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiffs
are entitled to the remaining amount. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.145 of 2021
To:
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court,
Periyakulam,
Theni District.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Theni District.
Copy to:
The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.145 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
A.S.(MD)No.145 of 2021
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
