This first appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.03.1999 in O.S.No.610/1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore.
2.Defendants are the appellants.
3.Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants hereinafter.
4.The suit in O.S.No.610/1991 was instituted by the plaintiffs claiming a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation from the defendants on account of electrocution of their mother Kuppammal on 15.09.1988.
5.In the plaint in O.S.No.610/1991, plaintiffs inter-alia contended thus :
(a)Plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the deceased Kuppammal who died on 15.09.1988 on account of electrocution. Deceased Kuppammal was employed as sweeper in the local Government Hospital on a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. The deceased was residing at No.62, Arugandampoondi of Thottapalayam. Kuppammal's mother Govindammal was also a resident in the very same street.
(b)On 15.09.1988, at about 7.30 p.m., mother of Kupammal viz., Govindammal came to her house to distribute Prasadam in connection with Vinayaga Chadurthi Festival. At about 8.00 p.m., Kuppammal came out of the house and proceeded to her residence. It was raining and she walked a few steps towards North to go to her house. The live wire carrying electricity broke from the lamp post which was standing on the southern side of the house of the plaintiffs along with the socket, and fell on Govindammal, causing her instantaneous death. On hearing the death cry of her mother Govindammal, Kupammal rushed to the spot and she was also electrocuted.
(c)The incident was solely on account of the negligence on the part of the defendants in not keeping the live electricity wires in a fit and proper condition. In fact, on the previous day, complaint was lodged by the husband of the deceased Kuppammal to the fourth defendant with regard to the poor condition of the pole wire and there being short circuit. However, there was no action. The deceased Kuppammal was hale and healthy. She was looking after the entire family. Plaintiffs have become orphans on account of the death of their mother. Kuppammal was employed in Government service and on account of her death, the family suffered monetarily as well as emotionally. Accordingly, they prayed for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation.
6.The suit was resisted by the defendants. In the written statement filed by the fourth defendant, it was contended thus :-
(a)The allegations that the accident was due to the negligence of the defendants was specifically denied;
(b)There was heavy rain and wind in the Vellore Town on 15.09.1989, especially in the evening. Owing to the heavy wind and rain, street light electric over-head line gave way at shackle point with shackle, and the electric wire over-head line fell on the ground. At about 7.30 p.m. on the same day, Govindammal came into contact with the overhead line lying on the ground while going to her house and died. On hearing her cry, deceased Kuppammal came to rescue her mother and she also came into contact with the live electric wire lying on the ground and died. There was absolutely no negligence on the part of the Electricity Department. Overhead lines were being inspected and maintained periodically and the incident had taken place purely due to natural calamity viz. due to heavy wind and rain. It was an act of God. There was no complaint from the husband of the deceased Kuppammal at any time with regard to the poor condition of the pole wire much less on the previous day. There was no short circuit in the Melaniai Street, as averred by the plaintiffs. The condition of the lamp post and the overhead line in the accident spot were intact and in good condition. The deceased Kuppammal as well as deceased Govindammal ought to have been careful and should have noticed the live wire and should have avoided the accident. The compensation claimed was wholly exorbitant and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7.The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues for consideration :-
1. Did the deaths occur due to failure on the part of the defendants 1 to 4 in properly maintaining the electric wire ?
2. Are the defendants 1 to 4 liable to compensate the plaintiffs ?
3. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get compensation of Rs.4 lakhs from the defendants ?
4. To what other relief the plaintiffs are entitled to ?"
8.Before the trial Court, PWs-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. Though DW-1 was examined on the side of the defendants, no documents were marked.
9.The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on the side of the parties, arrived at a categorical finding that the incident was only on account of the negligence of the defendants. Accordingly, the issue regarding negligence was answered against the defendants.
10.The trial Court also found that the deceased Kuppammal was employed as sweeper in the local Government hospital. The trial Court on the basis of evidence of PW-1 and in the light of Ex.A-5, fixed the age of the deceased at 30 and concluded that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3000/- per month. Accordingly, decree was granted for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs.
11.It is the said Judgment and Decree dated 19.03.1999 which is impugned in the first appeal at the instance of the unsuccessful defendants.
12.The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the incident was not on account of the negligence of the defendants as it was an act of god. According to the learned counsel, the quantum was also excessive and without basis and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
13.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiffs clearly shows that the defendants were negligent and careless and the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge was on the basis of materials. Quantum was assessed on the basis of the monthly income earned by the deceased and also on the basis of contribution to the family. The learned counsel also contended that the defendants are not entitled to challenge the issue regarding negligence as they have already satisfied the Judgment and Decree passed in the connected suit filed at the instance of the legal heirs of the deceased Govindammal who also died along with Kuppammal on 15.09.1988.
14.The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal :-
(a)Whether the incident was due to the negligence of the defendants so as to give a cause of action to the plaintiffs to claim damages from the defendants ?
(b)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages and if so, the quantum ?
15.The unfortunate incident on 15.09.1988 which took the lives of Govindammal and Kuppammal remain unchallenged. In fact, the death of Kuppammal was clearly admitted in the written statement filed by the defendants.
16.The first plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and in her evidence, she has deposed about the incident in question as well as the age and monthly income of the deceased and her contribution to the family. PW-2 was working as Electrician and in his evidence, he deposed that there was rain and wind on the fateful day and he was a witness to the incident. PW-2 has clearly stated that the defendants were highly negligent. Electric wire was hanging about 10 days prior to the incident and the matter was informed to the electricity department. However, there was no action taken by the department to rectify the defects. The electricity cable with insulation was broken and the department was also tipped off about the fault. Still, there was no action at their instance. Though the defendants have examined D.W.1, who was working as an Engineer in the electricity department to justify their contention that they were not responsible, his evidence was found to be not sufficient to justify the contention that they were not negligent. The evidence of PW-2 was found to be cogent and convincing and the trial Court believed the said evidence and ultimately arrived at a factual finding that the incident was not on account of act of God.
17.The maintenance of the line vests only with the electricity department. The incident happened on 15.09.1988. The incident was in September and they could have anticipated rain accompanied by wind. Therefore, the defendants should have been careful enough to maintain the electric line and to set right the defects. According to PW-2, intimation was given to the defendants two days prior to the incident about the poor condition of the electricity line. There was nothing on record to show that the defendants attended to such repairs. Electricity department was expected to maintain the lines properly, especially during the rainy season. When they have failed in their duty to maintain the line properly, they cannot shriek their responsibility by labeling the incident as act of God, over which they have no control. Evidence adduced by the plaintiffs clearly shows that the defendants were at fault. Therefore, I am of the view that the incident was only on account of the negligence of the defendants. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the defendants.
18.The deceased Kuppammal was employed as a sweeper in the local Government Hospital. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence of PW-1 and in the light of Ex.A-5, post-mortem certificate, fixed the age at 35. Though no report was produced to show that her salary was Rs.3,000/- per month, the trial Court was of the opinion that she would have received a sum of Rs.3,000/- as salary. Accordingly, trial Court fixed the compensation amount at Rs.2 lakhs.
19.The fact that the deceased Kuppammal was employed in the local Government Hospital as sweeper was not denied. The defendants having not denied the employment of the deceased cannot allege that the compensation claimed was excessive. Age of the deceased was also not in dispute. Doctor who conducted postmortem has recorded the age as 30 years. However, the trial Court on the basis of evidence of PW-1 fixed the age at 35 years.
20.In a matter like this, in the absence of a clear guideline to arrive at the quantum, it would be permissible to look at the sister enactments like the Motor Vehicles Act. As per
Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in case the deceased was less than 35 years, maximum multiplier would be 17. Even if the minimum salary was taken, it would be Rs.3,000/- per month @ Rs.100 per day. Out of the said amount, 1/3 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses. Therefore, the remaining amount would be Rs.2,000/-. Even if a multiplier of 12 is taken, the total amount would be a sum of Rs.2,88,000. However, the learned Trial Judge has granted only a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. Therefore, the compensation arrived at by the learned Trial Judge was perfectly correct and it does not call for interference.
21.Therefore, on a careful consideration of the entire materials, I am of the view that the Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Judge was based on evidence and it does not call for interference.
22.The second point is answered accordingly. Accordingly, the Judgment and Decree dated 19.03.1999 is confirmed and the first appeal is dismissed. No costs.
23.The appellants are directed to deposit the entire decree amount with interest less the amount deposited already, within eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The respondents are permitted to withdraw the amount on such deposit as per the decree of the trial Court.
tar To The Subordinate Court, Vellore