TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (1) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m his injuries and he is still under treatment. This application is to direct the Kerala State Electricity Board to pay compensation for the injuries to the second applicant. The injuries suffered by the second petitioner as stated in exhibit A-4 letter sent by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Wadakancherry, to the liquidator are the following : "1.Deep burns on the right leg toe, 2.Burns on left foot, 3.Burns on both palms, 4.Burns on the anterior abdominal wall". The second petitioner informed the official liquidator about the inci-. dent by exhibit A-3 letter, which was received by the liquidator on January 4, 1989. In the said letter, it was stated that when he found fire near the electric post in the premises of the company in liquidation, he tried to extinguish the fire. At that time, he suffered electric shock from the stay wire and suffered burns on both his palms and legs and stomach. The liquidator thereupon sent a letter to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Wadakancherry. Exhibit A-4 is the reply dated January 11, 1989, from the Assistant Engineer. On March 15, 1989, the Executive Engineer reported the matter to the Chief Engineer o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concluded that the only possibility of the stay wire becoming live may be because a piece of wire or some other conducting material must have been dropped by birds which made contact with the electric line for a short period till the abovesaid dropped conductor melted and fell away. It is also stated in the counter that this view of the Assistant Engineer is corroborated by the statement of the second applicant that he saw a piece of metal falling down from the electric post. The Assistant Engineer also noted that the Wadakancherry 11 KV feeder tripped on account of earth fault and overcurrent (R and B) relays. Thus, the contention is that the electric shock was due to reasons beyond the control of the. Kerala State Electricity Board and not due to any negligence, default or omission on the part of the Board. The dropping of conductive materials on the line is one of the remotest possibilities and the Board cannot do much for averting such a calamity. It is also contended that the second applicant has not acted diligently (sic) by touching the stay wire of the 11 KV post. It is further contended that instead of reporting to the Electricity Board's office, the second applicant thou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Act. In any view of the case, under section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, even in case the official liquidator is made liable, the liquidator will be entitled to be indemnified by the Kerala State Electricity Board. It cannot be disputed that the second applicant suffered electric shock on January 1, 1989, from the stay wire of the electric post within the premises of Mittal Steel Re-rolling and Allied Industries Limited (in liquidation). Exhibit A-4 letter of the Assistant Engineer as well as the oral evidence of R. W. 1, who is the Assistant Engineer, Electricity Board, Wadakkan-cherry, apart from the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants, prove that the second applicant suffered electric shock injuries on January 1, 1989. The contention on behalf of the respondents is that the second applicant suffered injuries due to short circuit by a piece of wire or some conducting material dropped by birds. According to the respondents, the stay wire became live due to such short circuit. Such an incident is accidental and not due to any lapse on the part of the Electricity Board or its officers. In exhibit A-4 letter, the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s ipsa loquitur squarely applies. The facts established are such that the proper and natural inference immediately arising from them is that the injury complained of was caused by the respondents' negligence. Negligence is not a question of evidence. It is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one, it is rather a comparative term. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which should be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause injury to others. Normally, the burden of proving negligence is on the petitioner (plaintiff) who alleges it. However, in this case the burden or onus of proof is on the respondent, who is expected to show as to how the accident might have occurred without his negligence. In this case, where considerable hardship is caused to the second petitioner as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the respondents, the petitioner can only prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened. This hardship can be avoided only by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur: see Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v.....