Kerala State Electricity Board vs A. Mani, M. Praseeda, M. Pradeepa and M. Pradeesh

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—The first defendant in a suit for compensation is the appellant. It is the licensee for supply of electrical energy in the State of Kerala. The appellant Kerala State Electricity Board and two of its officers were sued on account of the death of Kumari, a female, who died on 25.2.2001, leaving behind her husband, a daughter aged 19 years and two minors who are then aged 17 and 15, of which, one is a female. The minor son also suffered injuries. The family also lost a cow in the incident.

An electric line was ultimately found hanging, to which, the cow or deceased Kumari came into contact and later, her minor son Pradeesh also came into contact. This is how the incident had occurred.

KSEB set up a defence that the incident occurred when a snapped dead conductor hanging from a post got entangled with a cow which was grassing in a field and due to the pressure exerted by the cow, the dead conductor came into contact accidentally with a live wire on the opposite side of the electric post and got electrocuted. According to the defence, deceased Kumari, who was grassing the cow, attempted to save the animal and that led to her electrocution. Obviously, the son would have attempted to save the mother and thus he also suffered.

Taking into consideration the different aspects of the matter, including the deposition of DW1, the then Assistant Engineer of the Board, the court below found that the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs. We read the deposition of DW1, the Assistant Engineer. He candidly states that there was even a departmental enquiry following the accident, in which, the officials were found to be guilty and increments were barred.

With the aforesaid, we also find formidable support in the judgment of the Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari 2002(1) KLT 480, wherein, the principle of ''strict liability'' was applied even in a case where the licensee took the stand that the electricity accident was a result of negligence of third parties. For the aforesaid reasons, we affirm the findings of the court below regarding negligence.

On to the question of compensation, the court below took that deceased Kumari, who was a construction worker, would have a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-. Her age was appropriately determined and compensation fixed. The only plea urged before us, in challenge to this, is that the sole material available before the court below was Ext.A3, which is a certificate issued by the District Executive Officer of the Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board, which shows that Kumari was a member of the Fund. That document is a statutory order issued by the competent authority. It goes a long way in unequivocally establishing that Kumari was a building construction worker. It also shows that she was a member of the Fund. Obviously therefore, the court below could not be found fault with for having determined her income at Rs. 3,000/-. She was also a house wife even going by the defence version that she was grassing a cow. The judgment of the court below clearly analysed all attendant relevant situations in determining the compensation.We do not find any ground to interfere with the quantum of compensation fixed by the court below also.

For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this appeal. However, we desist from issuing any order of costs against the appellants.