Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, the “Board”), challenges the judgment and decree passed by the court below in a suit for compensation initiated by the dependants of Raman Pillai, who died on account of electrocution.
2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Board and the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs.
3. On 09/09/1998, at about 5.30 a.m., while Raman Pillai was returning to his residence after his work at fishing harbour, he came into contact with a live wire, which fell on the public road, and got electrocuted. The Board set up a defence that due to heavy rain and wind, a palm leaf happened to fall on the electric line, which resulted in the snapping of the wire. The Board pleaded that Raman Pillai got electrocuted on account of want of care on his side.
4. Electricity is a dangerous substance and, therefore, the principles of strict liability would apply. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors [(2008) 9 SCC 527] held that in cases where the principles of strict liability apply, the defendant has to pay damages for the injury caused to the plaintiffs, even though the defendant may not be at any fault. In M.P Electicity Board Vs.
Shail Kumari [(2002(1) KLT 480 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a live wire got snapped and fell on the public road, the electric current therein should have automatically been disrupted. The authorities manning such dangerous commodities have an extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. We also find that the Board having failed to ensure safety, by using devices to render an electric line harmless, when it breaks, in terms of Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules had committed a statutory breach of duty bestowed on them. Thus, we affirm the finding of negligence, rendered by the court below, on the Board.
5. The court below, in the absence of proof as to the income, fixed Rs.24,000/- per annum as notional income and took 16 as multiplier considering the age of the deceased between 35 and 40. The loss of dependency thus calculated amounts to Rs.2,56,000/-. We feel that the notional income ought to have been fixed at Rs.36,000/-, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi vs. Mohammad Tabbar [2008 ACJ 1488]. This Court in Anitha and others vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, TVM and others [2014 (2) KHC 114] held that the guidelines formulated in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009 (6) SCC 121)] can be followed to determine the compensation amount on account of loss of dependency under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act. The multiplier adopted in Sarla Verma's case (supra) is 15. Therefore, the total compensation for loss of dependency is to be calculated at Rs.3,60,000/- after deducting 1/3rd towards personal maintenance of the deceased. The court below calculated loss of dependency at Rs.3,84,000/- by adopting multiplier 16 and also deducted Rs.1,28,000/- towards 1/3rd expenses that would be required for maintenance of the deceased had he been alive. The loss of dependency thus calculated amounts to Rs.2,56,000/-. The court below awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the court below found that the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,78,000/-. The court below awarded compensation of Rs.2,53,000/- after adjusting ex gratia payment. We find that the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation at a higher amount than awarded by the court below and in the absence of any appeal by the plaintiffs, we affirm the compensation awarded by the court below. The interest awarded by the court below is also modest and appropriate. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
6. Having regard to the nature of the litigation and the economically marginalised sector to which the plaintiffs belong, we hold that they are eligible to be exempted from paying court fee in the court of first instance in view of order XXXIII Rule 11 of CPC as amended by notification dated 13.01.1999 - see for support, Joseph v. Kerala State Electricity Board [ILR 2013(1) Ker.26]. That modification to the impugned judgment and decree can be made in favour of the plaintiffs in exercise of power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC. In exercise of authority as afore-noted, the direction contained in the judgment and decree ordering realisation of court fee from the plaintiffs is vacated, and it is ordered that no court fee shall be recovered from them.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ms