Madras High Court
The Executive Officer vs K.Palaniappan on 28 February, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
A.S.No.33 of 2024
The Executive Officer
Elampillai Town Panchayat
Elampillai
Salem
Erode Taluk .... Appellant
Versus
1.K.Palaniappan
Son of Kaliappan
2. Kannammal
Wife of K.Palaniappan
3. The Block Development Officer
Veerapandi Union
Salem District
4. The Assistant Engineer (O& M)
TANGEDCO
Elampillai
5. The Executive Engineer (O &M)
TANGEDCO
Vempadithalam
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
6. The Superintending Engineer
TANGEDCO
Udayapatty
Salem District
7. The District Collector
Collector Office
Salem ....Respondents
First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2018 made in O.S.No.63 of
2017 (P.O.P.No.76 of 2016) on the file of II Additional District Court,
Salem.
For Appellant ... Ms.K.Indupriya
For Respondent ... Mr.L.Ramanathan for R1 and R2
Mrs.R.Anitha
Special Govt. Pleader for R3 and R7
Mrs.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy
Standing counsel for R4, R5 and R6
A.S.No.40 of 2023
1. The Assistant Engineer (O& M)
TANGEDCO
Elampillai
2. The Executive Engineer (O &M)
TANGEDCO
Vempadithalam
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
3. The Superintending Engineer
TANGEDCO
Udayapatty
Salem District .... Appellants
Versus
1.K.Palaniappan
Son of Kaliappan
2. Kannammal
Wife of K.Palaniappan
3. The Block Development Officer
Veerapandi Union
Salem District
4. The Executive Officer
Elampillai Town Panchayat
Elampillai
Salem
5. The District Collector
Collector Office, Salem ....Respondents
First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2018 made in O.S.No.63 of
2017 (P.O.P.No.76 of 2016) on the file of II Additional District Court,
Salem.
For Appellant ... Ms.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
For Respondent ... Mr.L.Ramanathan for R1 and R2
Mrs.R.Anitha
Special Govt. Pleader for R3 and R5
Ms.K.Indupriya for R4
------
COMMON JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of trial Court directing the
defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10,90,000/- along with
interest at 6% as compensation to the plaintiffs, who are the parents of the
deceased, these appeals have been filed.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.
3. A.S.No.33 of 2024 is filed by the second defendant in the suit and
A.S.No.40 of 2023 is filed by the Defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. Since both
appeals arise out of the same judgment, both the appeals are taken up and
heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. Brief facts leading to filing of case is as follows:
Plaintiffs' younger son Mohanraj, who was aged about 28 years, died
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
due to leakage of electricity in high power tower post at Santhaipettai,
Elampillai in the morning of 23.08.2015 and an FIR came to be registered
in Crime No.498 of 2015 on 24.08.2015 on the complaint lodged by the
parents of the deceased. The investigation also establishes the fact that the
death was due to electrocution. It is the case of the plaintiffs that high power
tower was under the control of Defendants 1 to 4 and as the tower had not
been maintained, the leakage had happened and therefore, defendants 1 to 4
are liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs.
5. The fifth defendant filed a written statement and the same was
adopted by defendants 1 to 4 and 6. It is their contention that alleged police
complaint dated 24.08.2015 would establish the fact that cause of death of
Mohanraj was suspicious. It is the case of the defendants that the death was
not due to electrical short circuit as stated by the plaintiffs rather the death
has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased Mohanraj and
therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by
the trial Court:
i) Whether the death of Mohanraj occurred due to the
negligence on the part of the defendants?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation
from the defendants?
iii) To what other relief?
7. In the trial, on the side of the plaintiffs two witnesses were
examined as PWs 1 and 2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked and on the
side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DWs 1 and 2 but no
documents were marked.
8. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suit in part and directed the
defendants to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,90,000/- as
compensation to the plaintiffs along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum. Challenging the said judgment, these two appeals have been filed.
9. It is the contention of the appellants in A.S.No.40 of 2023 that trial
Court has proceeded as if the electric power post is being maintained by
TANGEDCO however the posts are maintained only by the local authorities.
Therefore, fixing the liability on TANGEDCO to pay the compensation is
not proper. It is their further contention that trial Court fixed the income of
the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month without any evidence. According to
the appellants, the death was due to electrocution has not been established
and in the post-mortem report, initially there is no mention that the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
died due to electrocution, but only later it is stated by the doctor that the
deceased appeared to have been died due to 'electrocution'. That apart, FIR
would indicate that death was due to suspicious circumstances. Therefore,
the finding of the trial Court that death was due to electrocution is not
sustainable.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would
submit that the death was due to electrocution has been clearly established
not only through the evidence of the medical officer but also it is admitted
by the third respondent in their reply. The learned counsel for plaintiffs
further submitted that trial Court has also adopted only notional income to
arrive at the compensation which does not require any interference. Once it
is established that there was leakage of electricity in the electric post, the
respondent cannot avoid liability and therefore, prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
11. In the light of the above submissions, now the points arise for
consideration are as follows:
i) Whether the death of plaintiffs' son was due to electrocution?
ii) Whether the defendants are not liable to pay compensation?
iii) Whether the quantum of compensation arrived is proper?
iv) To what relief the parties are entitled?
Point No.1:
12. The suit has been laid for compensation on account of death of
plaintiffs' son due to electrocution. The case of the plaintiffs is that on
23.08.2015, their son was found dead due to electricity leakage at
Santhaipettai, Elampillai. The plaintiffs have also narrated the facts about
filing of FIR and post-mortem report. Ex.A1-FIR filed initially by the
parents would show that the plaintiffs' son was found dead near a high
power tower post, which led to the filing of FIR. Thereafter, post-mortem
was conducted and medical officer was examined as PW2. Medical Officer,
who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, has clearly spoken in
his evidence that the deceased died due to electrocution. It is also relevant to
note that Ex.A5 is the reply given by the third defendant to the legal notice
where he has clearly admitted that on the date of accident, he inspected the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
place of occurrence and checked the high power tower and found that there
was electricity leakage and he has also informed the Executive Officer to set
right that leakage. Therefore, the very admission of the TANGEDCO
Officer under Ex.A5 coupled with the evidence of Medical Officer clearly
proves the fact that the deceased died only due to electrocution. As there
was an inspection on the same day of death of deceased, where pilferage was
notified and medical evidence proves the electrocution death, it has to be
held that the death was only due to the leakage of electricity from the high
power tower. Though the third defendant is blaming the Executive Officer
for not maintaining the high power tower, the fact remains that there was
leakage of electricity from the high power tower which resulted in death of
the deceased.
Point No.2:
13. It is well settled that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous
or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused to any one on account of
the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and
absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident.
When electricity is supplied by TANGEDCO, now they cannot just blame
the Executive Officer on the ground that since the tower is being maintained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
by the local authority, the liability has to be fastened upon them. It is for the
supplier to ensure that there was no leakage of electricity. They cannot
attribute negligence on the part of the deceased or any other party. The rule
of strict liability will certainly come to play in these types of cases. The
Apex Court in M.P.Electrivity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and others reported
in (2002) 2 SCC 162 held as follows:
'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. 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 in 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 propounded in the celebrated case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
Rylands v. 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 lands 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."
14. Therefore, once leakage of electricity has been established by oral
admission of the Department under Ex.A5 and the death was due to
electrocution also has been clearly established by PW2, the forensic medical
officer who has conducted autopsy over the dead body and found that there
was burn injuries due to electrocution and he has finally opined that the
death was due to electrocution, it is too late for the defendants to contend
that the death of the deceased was not due to electrocution.
Point No.3:
15. The other contention raised by the appellants/defendants is that the
trial Court ought not to have adopted notional income. According to the
appellants/defendants, there was no material available on record to prove the
nature of the income of the deceased at the relevant point of time. The trial
Court has adopted notional income of Rs.10,000/- per month. Considering
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
the fact that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of death, 50% has been
deducted towards personal expenses and monthly income has been taken as
Rs.5000/- and multiplier of 17 is applied. The trial Court after awarding the
compensation under various heads including love and affection, granted
compensation of Rs.10,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date
of suit till the date of realization.
16. It is now well settled that if the income of the victim or deceased
has not been established, normally notional income will be taken note of.
The deceased was aged about 28 years. The accident took place in the year
2015. Therefore, applying the Minimum Wages Act, a person aged about 28
years would certainly earn more than Rs.10,000/. In fact, the trial Court was
fair in deducting 50% towards personal expenses considering the fact that
the victim was a bachelor.
17. Hence, this Court is of the view that fixing Rs.10,000/- as notional
income is reasonable considering the age of the deceased. Hence, the
contention of the appellants that notional income taken is on the higher side
is not sustainable.
This Court finds no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
The judgment and decree dated 21.12.2018 made in O.S.No.63 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
(P.O.P.No.76 of 2016) on the file of II Additional District Court, Salem is
confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
28.02.2025
gpa
To
1. II Additional District Court
Salem
2. The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
gpa
A.S.Nos.33 of 2024 and 40 of 2023
28.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:39:46 pm )
