High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2013-11-06Partly allowed; liability confirmed; quantum un...

Kerala State Electricity Board v. M.I. Chacko and others

Case / Petition Number:A.S. No. 32 of 2002

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2013-11-06
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The rate of interest on the compensation is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum from the date of suit to the date of recovery. The principal amount of Rs. 5,10,000/-, with costs in both courts, remains decreed in favor of the respondents. The finding of negligence against the KSEB and its officials is affirmed, and the decree stands insofar as compensation is concerned, save for the narrowed interest rate.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed; liability confirmed; quantum unchanged; interest reduced to 9% p.a.; principal amount Rs. 5,10,000 with costs

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, represented by its Secretary, Vaidhyuthi Bhavanam, Thiruvananthapuram-4
Executive Engineer, K.S.E.Board, Divisional Office, Thiruvalla
Asst. Executive Engineer, Ele. Major Section, K.S.E.B, Thiruvalla

Respondents

M.I. Chacko
Aliyamma Chacko
Saji M.Chacko
Jessy
Sibichan M.C.
Marykutty James

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. Santhalingam, Senior Advocate
• Sri S. Sharan, SC, K.S.E.BOARD

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri V. Philip Mathew
• Sri Shiju Varghese
• Sri Jinu Joseph

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is an appeal under A.S. No. 32 of 2002 arising from OS No. 69/1999 of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, concerning a fatal electrocution on 14 May 1998 involving a stay wire of an 11 kV line belonging to the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). The deceased, a mason, and co-workers sheltered near a cement shed when they observed a fiery event in a nearby post, after which the deceased touched the stay wire and died of electric shock. The trial court held the KSEB liable for negligence, denying the defense’s alternative explanations (lightning, breakage causing energy leakage) and attributing responsibility to the Board and its officials. The High Court, relying on established authority, including WB SEB v. Sachin Banerjee and related Kerala precedents, affirmed the negligence finding and held that the stay insulator mechanism existed to prevent energy flow, and that the evidence did not establish a different cause of death." The court also assessed damages, noting the deceased’s earnings (Rs. 3000 per month, approx. 23 years old) and computing a principal sum of Rs. 5,10,000 with costs. However, it corrected the rate of interest under Section 34 CPC from 12% to 9% per annum from the date of suit to recovery. The appeal was partly allowed; the liability stands firm but with modified interest, and the quantum remains otherwise intact.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 34 CPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the stay insulator mechanism in the stay wire and the point that energy flow could be prevented by such safeguards should have been more forcefully established to negate negligence. They submit that the evidence allows for other possible causes, such as a lightning-induced breakage, and urge the court to re-examine the causal link between the Board’s maintenance and the death. They also contend that the quantum of damages was arrived at on uncertain premises and seek a re-evaluation, though they do not pursue a full set-aside of the decree. The rate of interest as awarded (12% p.a.) is challenged as excessive under section 34 CPC. Overall, they seek relief based on alternative causation and a reduction of financial liability.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents assert that the Board owed a duty of care in maintaining the line and its insulators; the evidence supports that a negligent maintenance or failure to prevent energy flow through the stay wire caused the electrocution; the lower court’s finding on negligence should be upheld, and damages duly awarded on the established earnings of the deceased. They emphasize the need to compensate the heirs for the loss and support the quantum calculated by the trial court. They also argue that the rate of interest should reflect statutory discretion under Section 34 CPC, and that the principal amount determined by the court below should stand, subject to any minor adjustments as supported by legal precedent and the evidence on record.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
WB SEB v. Sachin Banerjee	(1999) 9 SCC 21	Positive	Cited to support the liability framework of a public utility in electrocution cases and the application of Vandry principles.
Varghese and another v. K.S.E.B.	ILR 2013 (2) Ker. 99	Positive	Applied to reinforce negligence and liability concepts in the KSEB context.
Secretary, K.S.E.B. v. Subhadra	ILR 2013 (4) Ker 79	Positive	Cited in relation to liability considerations and the duty of care by the Board.
Quebec Railway Light, Heat and Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry	1920 SC 662	Positive	Cited for foundational principles underpinning the liability of utilities and related negligence.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Kerala State Electricity Board v. M.I. Chacko and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/15TH KARTHIKA, 1935** **AS.No. 32 of 2002** **---------------------OS NO.69/1999 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA DATED 22/12/2000** **.....** ## **APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS::** **----------------------------------------------** **1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.** **2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA.** **3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELE.MAJOR SECTIION, K.S.E.B, THIRUVALLA.** **BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN,SC,K.S.E.BOARD** ## **RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS::** **---------------------------------------------** ## *** 1. M.I. CHACKO,** - **S/O.ISSAC, AGED 69 YEARS, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, MAMMOODU P.O., MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK. ( D I E D) - LR'S IMPLEADED:** - **** 2. ALIYAMMA CHACKO, AGED 66 YEARS,** - **W/O. M.I.CHACKO, -DO- -DO-. ( D I E D) - LR'S IMPLEADED:** ## **3. SAJI M.CHACKO, AGED 25 YEARS OF -DO- -DO-.** ## **4. JESSY, D/O. M.I.CHACKO, AGED 27 YEARS OF -DO- -DO-.** ***IT IS RECORDED THAT THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIED AND RESPONDENTS 1,3 AND 4 (ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY) ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 21/02/2012 IN MEMO DATED 11/07/07.** **..2/-** **Kss** **A.S.NO.32/2002** **...2.....** ## ****ADDL.R5 & R6 IMPLEADED:** - **R5. SIBICHAN M.C., S/O. LATE M.I.CHACKO, LABOURER, AGED 43, RESIDING AT MOOLAYIL HOUSE, MADAPPILLI VILLAGE, CHENGANASSERY TALUK, MAMOOD PO, CHENGANSSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 536.** - **R6. MARYKUTTY JAMES, D/O.LATE M.I.CHACKO @ ISAHAK CHACKO, LABORER, AGED 48 YEARS, ..DO..DO...** - **** THE ABOVE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED R1 & R2 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R5 & R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 29/20/2013 IN I.A.NO.2216/2013.** **R3,R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW ADDL-R5 & R6 BY ADVS. SRI.SHIJU VARGHEESE SRI.JINU JOSEPH** **THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **AS.NO.32/2002** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **N I L** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEX.1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF M.I.CHACKO DATED 13/03/2012. ANNEX.2: ORIGINAL RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MADAPPALLY DATAED 3/04/2012.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** ## **Kss** ## **THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.** ------------------------------------------- ## **A.S. No. 32 of 2002** ------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of November, 2013. ## JUDGMENT ## **Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.** - 1.This appeal by the Kerala State Electricity Board and its Officers is against a decree for damages granted in a case of electrocution. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. - 2.The son of plaintiffs 1 and 2 was electrocuted on 14.05.1998 at 4.45 p.m, when he came into contact with a stay wire of an electric post carrying 11 KV electric supply line. That belongs to the K.S.E. Board, and is controlled and managed by defendants 2 and 3. - 3.The deceased was engaged in masonry and concreting work of a new building belonging to one Jiji Johnson, along with others. It was raining and the deceased and his co-workers took shelter in the nearby shed erected to keep cement. They heard a sound followed by fire in the electric post standing behind A.S. No. 32 of 2002 2 the shed. Seeing the link wire catching fire, the deceased and other workers jumped out of the shed and the deceased touched the stay wire of the electric post and was electrocuted as a result of electrical energy leaking down through the stay wire. 4.Death is not disputed. The defendants filed written statement pleading that it could be a suspected case of the victim having died due to strong lightening, as there was heavy rain, and the workmen, including the deceased, had taken shelter in the shed erected to store cement. According to the K.S.E.B. officials, as a result of sudden flash of lightning, a pin insulator broke and the line got detached and fell on the cross arm, resulting in fire. The shed where the deceased and his friends were then available was 9 meters away from the point of the said break down in the electric line. - 5.The court below, having heard the eye witnesses and the Assistant Executive Engineer of the K.S.E.Board, concluded that the incident has necessarily to be attributed to the K.S.E. Board and its officials. The court below held that even according to A.S. No. 32 of 2002 3 DW1, there was mechanism available to avoid electrical energy flowing through the stay wire. The court below rightly noted that there is nothing elicited in the circumstances to conclude that the deceased did not receive electric shock or that the death was owing to any other reason. Stay insulator is being used by K.S.E. Board to prevent the flow of electric energy to the stay wire, which was stated by DW1, the Assistant Executive Engineer. Those conclusions on appreciation of evidence do not warrant interference. 6.In the said circumstances, the law laid by the Apex Court in W.B. SEB v. Sachin Banerjee [(1999) 9 SCC 21] and the decisions of this Court in Varghese and another v. K.S.E.B. [ILR 2013 (2) Ker. 99] and Secretary, K.S.E.B. v. Subhadra [ILR 2013 (4) Ker 79], all following Quebec Rly., Light, Heat and Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry [1920 SC 662] apply on all fours to the facts of the case in hand and the impugned decree is not liable to be set aside as regards the finding of the Court below on the question of negligence. A.S. No. 32 of 2002 4 - 7.On the question of quantum of compensation, PW2, the father of the deceased and PW3, the co-worker, have made clear in evidence that the deceased was getting Rs.150/- per day and he used to get job for 22 days in a month. The deceased was 23 years of age. These facts were not disputed by the defendants in evidence. The court below rightly took that the deceased was getting an average income of Rs.3000/- per month and the compensation was accordingly calculated and awarded by the court below. 8.However, we see that the court below has granted 12% interest from the date of suit till realisation. In an appropriate exercise of discretion under section 34 C.P.C, the court below ought to have confined the rate of interest at 9% from the date of suit till date of recovery. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed modifying the rate of interest granted by the court below to be at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till date of recovery instead of 12% as granted by the court below. The respondents will also A.S. No. 32 of 2002 5 be entitled to the principal amount of Rs.5,10,000/- decreed by the court below with costs in this appeal and in the court below on that count. **THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE** **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE** DMR/-